The last roster spot

[sturt]

54 minutes ago, AHF said:

Between wing and center, there are two positions where you can make a case for a "break in case of emergency" need for more depth.

Right.

And the wing part of that has only become apparent recently. Schlenk did not anticipate that it would. We know that. He said that.

 

[sturt]

[JayBirdHawk]

5 hours ago, thecampster said:

Did I just hear that right?  You said we have a big Johnson????  

...

[JayBirdHawk]

...welcome to the rabbit hole fellas....

Here's what I think changed for Schlenk: he saw Jalen play in Summer League and determined we are good on Bigs.

[sturt]

Yeah, that has to be it.

[JayBirdHawk]

Nope.....this has to be it. 

 

 

[sturt]

So,  you're saying that TS apparently decided he needed another big after all, but just then, decided to fill that role internally?

I can buy that. Even last season, 82games says Dre played PF in 5 of his top 10 5-man units, so it's actually nothing new, but perhaps we'll see more of that.

Of course, his knee has to cooperate. Played 28 minutes last night, and stating the obvious, played hard.

[AtlHomer]

3 hours ago, sturt said:

Of course, his knee has to cooperate. Played 28 minutes last night, and stating the obvious, played hard.

When will we likely hear his status of the Dallas game?  I hope that his knee is getting better.  Perhaps he may need 'load management' with back to back games.

[AHF]

21 hours ago, sturt said:

You have to decide what you need for today. That is, where is it more likely a contingency option will be needed?

Because this is only a non-guaranteed contract, you can go get something different whenever (of course). And the pool for that position today is the pool for that position today.

If you perceive you need something different in two weeks, you gain nothing from having chosen a different position player due to a scarcity in the pool previously.

Nothing. Nothing.

You gain no advantage at either point, now, or later.

1. Getting what's best for you right now from the pool doesn't hurt you from getting what's best in two weeks or help you in two weeks.

2. Getting what's best for you in two weeks doesn't have any retroactive impact on your choices today.

"Non-guaranteed minimum" is key here.

Otherwise, it would be as you're asserting that you have to be cognizant of the pool today and what the pool might look like later.

 

 

This makes me think you and I are working off of different definitions of scarcity and fungibility.  (At least I hope that is the case.)

Let's try to define our terms.  Again, we are starting from the premise that TS views TLC as materially better than other available wings but views Okafor as interchangeable with any number of other big men.

Terms:

Scarce - deficient in quantity or number compared with the demand

Fungible - able to replace or be replaced by another identical item; mutually interchangeable

 

How does scarcity work with wings?  We know there is more demand for wings around the league than any other position.  The quality ones are all scooped up so if TS thinks that TLC is a "5" and the other alternatives are all "3" or lower then by passing on TLC now you know that if you go back to the pool later on you won't be getting a 5, you will be getting a 3.  That is where the shallow depth of the position and the idea of scarcity comes in.  By passing on TLC now, you close the door on his level of quality and resign yourself to a lesser player if you later need a wing.

How does scarcity work with big men?  So something that is fungible is able to be easily replaced with an interchangeable alternative.  Interchangeable here means functionally equivalent.  So if you have a pool of big men who are fungible, you can always get one of similar quality.  So if TS sees Okafor as a "5" but there are a dozen other "5" big men available in the pool then you can always get someone who is a "5" and a rough equivalent of Okafor.  In this context, the benefit of carrying Okafor on your roster is limited to the ability to insert him in the middle of a single game.  If you don't carry that fungible big man and you have an injury, you have to swap in JC, etc. to cover for that game and then you tap the pool to get your fungible alternative before the next game.  So the cost of not carrying the fungible big man is very low because that "5" grade big man will be there when you want him.

So to recap, the possible explanation I offered is that TS might be looking to take advantage of the depth of talent at each position by locking in the superior talent TLC while he is available knowing that he will otherwise be scooped up while knowing that there is fungible talent always available if we need a big man behind Capela, Dieng, JC, and Gallo.

 

 

Hopefully this puts us in the same discussion using the same terms.  (I assume some gap in our definitions is why you used the condescending gif rather than just having a conversation.)

[sturt]

33 minutes ago, AHF said:

locking in the superior talent TLC

My guess is that our disconnect has something more to do with this part, my friend.

And, that I was working from what we know exclusively. If you have evidence that, indeed, TLC is regarded as that--"superior talent" (or similar term)--by TS, I'm happy to concede that my logic was flawed.

Mind you, I'm not like some who are bulldogs and just refuse to ever let anyone think they've been persuaded to a different conclusion... present tense, that is, since yeah, I've been guilty of that at times in the past (but do make a conscious effort these days to aspire to sobriety and humility... aging I suppose has that effect).

 

The new intel that TS/McM expect to give Hunter more minutes at 4 this season, though, really is an important piece, somewhat obviously. Based on that, we now better understand that Hunter effectively is taking that 5th big role... 4th as long as Gallo is sidelined.

 

And to the charge of condescension, I get that, but please know that it's exceedingly less about condescension/disrespect, and rather, practically totally about frustration and, yeah, a contributing perception that it sometimes isn't just about wrestling with logic.

[AHF]

45 minutes ago, sturt said:

My guess is that our disconnect has something more to do with this part, my friend.

 

That was part of the premise in the original statement.  The original post talks about TS believing TLC was better than all other wings and positing a possible reason for keeping him was scarcity at the wing and interchangeability among big men.  It is one thing to argue with the logic but an entirely different thing to question the premise. 

 

The fact that TS signed TLC a couple of weeks ago and then kept him over every other available player at every position is a strong signal to me that TS at least thinks TLC is materially better than other wings (but will concede that this isn't the only possible explanation).

[JayBirdHawk]

TLC was the right call since our wings are dropping like flies.  

 

 

[JeffS17]

5 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

TLC was the right call since our wings are dropping like flies.  

 

 

That shot surprised me last night, dude misses open corner threes but hits a contested dribble step back