Well f Danny had just signed Blatche instead of Collins and because of that we were 5-6 games over. 500 would this subject even matter?
Blatche was the answer? I think that's a little premature. I too would have rather seen Blatche than Collins though
No one wanted him here, although it's understandable though, but I mean, what risk do you have if he'll be on a non guaranteed minimum deal? He could've given us some off the bench boost in scoring and rebounding.
Because people were too narrow minded to read between the lines. All they saw was 'head case' and they bailed.
People failed to see:
1. The fact that his talents (inside/outside scoring, rebounding, size) were just what we needed
2. The fact that his deal would have been vet min and non-guaranteed, meaning even if he was utterly useless AND caused emotional problems for the team, we could have cut him at zero penalty
Doc and Danny probably still reminisce on 2008 and the boost we gained by making two last minute veteran signings (PJ Brown and Sam Cassel) and (just as they do with the Small Ball) keep pushing that same button in the hope it will give the same results.
At the end of the day every move is a risk, and I'd rather take a risk on a young guy with high talent and updide (but a poor attitude) rather than a guy with no talent, no upside and a great attitude.
The latter is no risk move, and as accountants would know "zero risk, zero gain". Taking a safe move gets you a safe player - somebody who won't upset the status quo, but won't produce much (if any). Greg Stiemsma and Ryan Hollins were rare examples of players who were productive for us despite practically zero risk being taken, but those moves are the exception rather than the rule.