The bench unit still needs someone who is a shot creator and that is not Bogie. So if you trade JC you are trying to find someone who does a lot of what he does which says why trade him. I just dont see a JC trade happening. I think Q really l likes JC and likes what he brings us. And I am probably in the minority on this but I think the JC contract is a good value.
With Bogey and Conley out we still have someone who creates offense with the first unit. Gay can be a real boost offensively but I don't see him as a creator at this point plus I think it is uncertain how many productive minutes a night we get from him. As for the rookie, count me as one of the few that thinks people are way ahead of themselves building him into the rotation at this point. I hope he is ready but not many number 40 picks jump right in and contribute. Hopefully we get lucky. If so, JC is clearly expendable. While I clearly don't want epic defensive failures, I am not interested in going backward into an anemic offensive bench.
You clearly don’t remember the rotations that Q instituted last year. And you have a weird impression about what Bogie can’t do. Dude gets buckets.
Bogie does indeed get buckets. But I don't think he is good at creating his own shot. We need that on the 2nd unit. Many of you think trading JC is obvious. I guess we will see what the FO thinks.
The rotation was clearly staggered. I am happy to agree to disagree with you and others that think we should trade JC. I am not seeing it and think it will leave a hole. JC clearly has his down side and can be a black hole but I think we have two very good shot creators and I want one of them on the floor at all times.
Just for clarity, the discussion hasn’t been “We should trade JC”, it’s been “Since we need a noticeable upgrade on the defensive side of the ball, perhaps we should trade either JC or Bogie”.
Haven't seen anything about NZ, but that sounds ******* crazy, can't believe they do that.
Unless something damn good comes up this is what happens.
Why do we do that now that we have Gay and Paschall?
Maybe... I think the idea/appeal with Nance is you have a small 5 for a few minutes a night that can shoot a little and playmake. I think Nance is a more disruptive defender but may have the same net effect of playing Gay at the 5. Paschall is the iffy shooting small ball 5... Nance is still an iffy shooter.
I think it's more about the overall picture. We've had this teeter-totter over the past number of years where we were heavy on defense, light on offense, then swung hard to offense with limited defense. Now we're trying to correct without as large of a swing, and under-correcting while maintaining more of an offense. Moving away from Niang to Gay trends in the direction of overall better with a slight chipping away at spacing. Moving Bojan for Nance in that context is making a much larger jump in that direction for a guy who, while certainly different, is "on that side of the line." I would think moving Bojan for Nance moves you under a certain threshold offensively for doing what we do and having it look the same.
