Current Josh Smith?

[BigKAT]

You probably all remember Josh Smith being waved by Van Gundy in the 2015 Season, and how it sent the struggling Pistons on an 8 game winning streak or something like that.

Basically, not asking whose the worst player in the league, far from it, Josh Smith is a solid rotation guy even nowdays.


What I -am- asking,
Is who, on what team, do you think is just bad for their situation?
What team can add the most by substraction? Either by allowing more minutes for younger guys, or just improving chemistry.
It could a great player, just a bunch of reasons why it won't work.

Recent Examples:
Toronto trading Gay to the Kings (Go with Kyle and Demar)
Golden State Trading away Monta Ellis (Let Curry take over)
Lakers losing Kobe Bryant (Way-past-his-prime but still)


So here's my suggestion

Bradley Beal:Washington should lose Beal. He's not the 2nd star they need. Not healthy enough, and I've seen Wall without him, guy was blistering, doing his best Prime Rose imitation, raining hell from the midrange and clowning fools on the fastbreak. (He lost to the cavs, but still.) I say lose beal and get three quarters on the dollar in the form of younger bigs, Gortat is solid but he is growing older, and I'm not sure if Markieff their long term guy.

[C-Green]

You probably all remember Josh Smith being waved by Van Gundy in the 2015 Season, and how it sent the struggling Pistons on an 8 game winning streak or something like that.

Basically, not asking whose the worst player in the league, far from it, Josh Smith is a solid rotation guy even nowdays.


What I -am- asking,
Is who, on what team, do you think is just bad for their situation?
What team can add the most by substraction? Either by allowing more minutes for younger guys, or just improving chemistry.
It could a great player, just a bunch of reasons why it won't work.

Recent Examples:
Toronto trading Gay to the Kings (Go with Kyle and Demar)
Golden State Trading away Monta Ellis (Let Curry take over)
Lakers losing Kobe Bryant (Way-past-his-prime but still)


So here's my suggestion

Bradley Beal:Washington should lose Beal. He's not the 2nd star they need. Not healthy enough, and I've seen Wall without him, guy was blistering, doing his best Prime Rose imitation, raining hell from the midrange and clowning fools on the fastbreak. (He lost to the cavs, but still.) I say lose beal and get three quarters on the dollar in the form of younger bigs, Gortat is solid but he is growing older, and I'm not sure if Markieff their long term guy.

Beal is a good one. I would say Gay still applies in Sacramento.

[Proctor]

It seems a little more complex with Gay because people said the same thing when he left the Grizzlies. He's not a great player or a bad one, just highly mediocre. Doesn't seem any team he's on is hit too hard when he leaves.

[C-Green]

It seems a little more complex with Gay because people said the same thing when he left the Grizzlies. He's not a great player or a bad one, just highly mediocre. Doesn't seem any team he's on is hit too hard when he leaves.

He hates Cousins too. He's so miserable there that it has to affect his play at times. He and the Kings would both be better off if he was elsewhere.

[BigKAT]

It seems a little more complex with Gay because people said the same thing when he left the Grizzlies. He's not a great player or a bad one, just highly mediocre. Doesn't seem any team he's on is hit too hard when he leaves.

I think Gay is the same as Jennings.
Is on that dangerous 'Almost' good level.
Which means he is too good not to make a key part of your team once he is in it, (Raptors, Memphis, Sacramento), but as long as -this- is your 2nd guy, or 1st guy, you're just not winning that many games. (Jennings in Detroit and Milwukee before the Ellis trade)

You'd rather have guys who have defined roles.
That's how you win championships.

When you have these borderline starters who could fool themselves and GM's into thinking they are more than that, then it is dangerous for a team.

A good example is Iggy. Iggy in the eyes of many was a Franchise Player. But his teams never had -that- much success. Yet you put Iggy in the right role (2nd guy/3rd guy) and you got amazing Nugget seasons and Warrior seasons.

When you put him as your 6th man? You really got Historical greatness. (73 wins/67 wins and a chip)

That's my two cents on gay.
Too good for his own good. Or more likely, Not bad enough to find the right role.

[PP34Deuce]

I think Gay is the same as Jennings.
Is on that dangerous 'Almost' good level.
Which means he is too good not to make a key part of your team once he is in it, (Raptors, Memphis, Sacramento), but as long as -this- is your 2nd guy, or 1st guy, you're just not winning that many games. (Jennings in Detroit and Milwukee before the Ellis trade)

You'd rather have guys who have defined roles.
That's how you win championships.

When you have these borderline starters who could fool themselves and GM's into thinking they are more than that, then it is dangerous for a team.

A good example is Iggy. Iggy in the eyes of many was a Franchise Player. But his teams never had -that- much success. Yet you put Iggy in the right role (2nd guy/3rd guy) and you got amazing Nugget seasons and Warrior seasons.

When you put him as your 6th man? You really got Historical greatness. (73 wins/67 wins and a chip)

That's my two cents on gay.
Too good for his own good. Or more likely, Not bad enough to find the right role.

I agree. Gay is a great athlete and prototypical SF size. He's a starting caliber player but just isn't good enough to be a 2nd option even. 3rd option is great.

Rudy on the clippers or thunder as a 3rd 4th option would immensely help both teams.