mrhockey89 wrote:I'm confused as to why this is even a thread. I don't see how anyone could view Lavine's future as a PG rather than a SG? And to the point that LST has listing Flip Saunders as a guy that was for Lavine at PG, that is false. Flip said in interviews this past offseason that the only reason he was playing Lavine (out of position) as a PG was because he wanted Zach to get a chance to develop his overall game better, as he'll be able to move over to SG at anytime without problem.
I'll say this... If Zach Lavine's future on this team is as a PG, then I say we trade him right now, because he's a drain on our team at that position and likely always will be. SG, however, is a position this kid may be able to develop at.
Yeah, I did take some liberties with putting Flip in the PG category, but I really think he was on the fence about where to play Zach. Maybe putting Zach at PG was part of his tanking strategy, maybe it was because he thought it was the best move for the team...we'll never know. I know I thought playing Zach at PG was foolish at the time and it was tough to watch last year, but I've since warmed to it.
Hockey, you ask why this is even a thread, and it's a fair question with the board almost universally of the same mind that Zach needs to be a SG. But that's exactly why I teed up this thread. It kind of annoys me sometimes that Sam is almost mocked here for the decisions he has made...seems a little pompous to believe we are so much more knowledgeable than a guy who has spent his entire life in the NBA and was a former COY. So I tried to get into Sam's head to understand his reasoning, and that was the genesis for this thread.
Maybe Sam is right, and maybe the board is right...maybe we'll never know what was the best decision. But it's a good talker, I think. And there is one thing we know for certain...Sam's decision is 2-0.
