Minnesota Sports Forum

Looks like Larry Sanders gets bought out. Should we have any interest?

My own take is that we should at least do our homework and if the Front Office feels Larry is serious about overcoming his addiction issues, we might want to sign him to a contract with conditions relating to getting treatment. Unlike Beasley, he has proven to be an asset on the court and would not cost us any compensation and we could sure use his rim protection. If it doesn't work out, we cut him.

This team has taken to many chances on players with "issues", whether it be injury or drug related. We have some solid young guys, and it is time to stop taking chances, and started building a team. We can't afford to sign guys to double digit salaries that they aren't earning.

sjm34 wrote:This team has taken to many chances on players with "issues", whether it be injury or drug related. We have some solid young guys, and it is time to stop taking chances, and started building a team. We can't afford to sign guys to double digit salaries that they aren't earning.

Actually, we could sign him for the minimum. But I understand your point about taking on guys with issues and that is why I'd only do it if he would get treatment and wouldn't be disruptive to the young guys.

I highly doubt he is signing for the minimum. It is rumored that he left almost 20 mil on the table. If I guy can't get motivated for that kind of coin, I don't see a promising future. We need guys we can count on nightly.

Stay away from this guy. When he's not high, he's hurt.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Stay away from this guy. When he's not high, he's hurt.

+1 and he hates basketball

No way on God's green earth would I sign that guy.

It's kinda comical. Some posters on here have mentioned their frustration that we didn't bring in Whiteside, another guy that had issues, but will likely be anti Sanders on this one. You can't be on both sides of that fence.

He does have his issues, and several legitimate red flags, BUT this is the type of low risk/high reward moves that make GMs look brilliant. I'd give him a two-year deal (team option) and see if he can overcome his problems. Obviously I haven't been able to speak with the guy, but if Flip or Milt get the sense that he still wants to hoop, then you give it a go. If you (Flip) get the sense that he's a cancer, you cut him and move on. No harm done.

Maybe he fixes his life and gets back on the right road and we add a legitimate shot-altering/blocking big to the roster for pennies on the dollar. That'd be swell. And he's only 26.

(I'd rather roll the dice on Sanders for nothing than trade a future first for Payne, but ahh hell, we can do both.)

Camden wrote:It's kinda comical. Some posters on here have mentioned their frustration that we didn't bring in Whiteside, another guy that had issues, but will likely be anti Sanders on this one. You can't be on both sides of that fence.

He does have his issues, and several legitimate red flags, BUT this is the type of low risk/high reward moves that make GMs look brilliant. I'd give him a two-year deal (team option) and see if he can overcome his problems. Obviously I haven't been able to speak with the guy, but if Flip or Milt get the sense that he still wants to hoop, then you give it a go. If you (Flip) get the sense that he's a cancer, you cut him and move on. No harm done.

Maybe he fixes his life and gets back on the right road and we add a legitimate shot-altering/blocking big to the roster for pennies on the dollar. That'd be swell. And he's only 26.

(I'd rather roll the dice on Sanders for nothing than trade a future first for Payne, but ahh hell, we can do both.)

Ridiculous. I'd like to know who is playing both sides of the Sanders / Whiteside fence.

Signing Sanders would make a GM look brilliant? You sure about that?

"Signing Sanders would make a GM look brilliant? You sure about that?"

It easily could. There's little to no risk involved. Potentially a big reward. Those moves often make GMs and coaches look like studs.