People are approaching this issue almost like a reverse sunk-cost fallacy. We’re trying to look at a totality of cost rather than a relative cost. Rudy is off the books. Now what? Let’s say Rudy gets $7M a year more than he should. We’re over the cap regardless. Let’s say that costs you using that money on a MLE guy. Would you rather have the MLE guy than Rudy? Now, I get that some people suggest that we break a $20 into change, and we end up with a larger proportion of “decent pieces” that aren’t all-stars. Take a look at what that is currently, though. Could you grab pieces better in caliber and quality than a Bojan or JC? We’re currently playing JC, Conley, and Bojan who, while all great, aren’t as well rounded, and so you’re Allocating more and more minutes to incomplete players being on the floor. You have to consolidate where you can because you can add more of those guys as accessory pieces. I get Rudy isn’t well rounded like people would want. But he’s doing something at such an elite level that it’s a guy you’d want out there for 48 minutes, of it we’re possible.
We’re over the cap no matter how you slice it. Nothing you’re moving Rudy out for is going to be better. You’ll just clog up the roster with space-occupying players who are good enough to justify having them in the rotation and sucking up minutes, but not dynamic enough to push you farther.
The answer isn’t to supermax Rudy. You should be able to get him for less. But when it comes down to it, you do what you have to do. It’s like buying a really fancy car, and being okay with the price, but then losing it when you’re having to pay for upkeep and keeping it running smoothly, and thinking that because you just unloaded a bunch of money on the car, that you can’t afford to keep it pristine.
