I mean, we're already more or less capped out. Not trading for say, Andrew Bogut, wouldn't save ownership much money because we couldn't get him without sending back matching salary anyway.
So we won't trade for Bogut because we won't improve our salary position? I thought we were supposed to make trades that helped us win games.
Was responding to the fellow who was claiming we weren't making moves because ownership wanted to save money.
Oh okay. Got it. I thought Bogut was a no brainer improvement for this year that shouldn't impact our core team. Thanks
Bogut won't be traded for because he is pretty unlikely to help our team. That is where your assumption is way off. Not only has he been unable to reliably stay on the court, which is a common problem, he's also shooting only 47%, which is horrendous for someone who attempts about 95% of his shots in the paint. He's shooting 27% from the line. He can still rebound, but it's unclear if that's a skill at this point or a function of his lack of mobility just keeping him near the basket on every possession. His game is quickly falling apart, and his body has been falling apart for years.
He's a candidate to be signed if he's bought out, "candidate" being the key word there, but nothing more at this time. Tyler Zeller is more useful than Andrew Bogut at this time in their respective careers, and that's a statement about Bogut more than Zeller. When Bogut is not traded for, please don't be the slightest bit surprised or disappointed. He's not even the injured Andrew Bogut you remember. His time left in the league looks to be rapidly diminishing.