I think he could be a solid contributor for us but he’s simply not needed with the guards we have on the roster.
Why do people on here think signing this dead weight to a 10 million contract automatically makes him a trade asset?
Shumpert and Faried are still floating around out there, just like Melo and Lin, like clouds on the breeze.
no thank you. He's done. Pass. As someone who joined in 1999 I honestly expect better from you. You should be able to spot these by now. If MDA wasn't letting Shump play all those minutes before the playoffs Danuel would have probably been much better. He's our future in that position. Shump contributed zero in the playoffs except finally a couple games against the Warriors. Shump was atrocious against the Jazz. I don't want inconsistent players that are older, injury prone, and on their way out of the league taking minutes from our future. Most coaches always choose to play vets, even past their prime vets rather than develop younger players-- not signing shump forces the coaches hands. MDA is an odd coach, we all remember him constantly playing Joe Johnson heavy minutes as he continued to suck night in and night out.
Shump is of no use to us other than as a 'circumvent the cap' card... i'd rather see us develop guys... If he can be got on a team friendly contract or a 1 year and then nonguaranteed or something... then he is a salary matching chip that can be added to picks or whatever in a trade... I do not expect Shump to be of any benefit of the floor... just a tool for DM to use - if its beneficial...
Nothing to see? That's the whole point. Either way, there is something to see. And, we've entered a timeframe where we're likely to get movement..
He was bad here on the whole, but looked much more competent against the Warriors than House did in those first two games.
Because a 10 million one year contract can allow another team to dump a multi year contract with 12.5 million the first year. Some teams might want to do that. Especially if Shump can be combined with a player the receiving team might value. Like Gordon. Or Capela for that matter. The oft-stated hypothetical deal of Covington & Dieng for Shumpert & Gordon and however many picks it'd take to make Minnesota agree, is one example. It trades a very good player in Covington for a good player in Gordon, and instant 2020-21 salary relief for Minnesota. Plus picks. I'm sure everyone here can come up with other examples of how a Shumpert contract could be used. It's situational, and, since Shump hasn't been signed yet, clearly the situation hasn't come up yet. Luxury tax calculations can vary, but anyway you look at it, the Rockets can't spend that much more before they start having to pay some. Is Shumpert's hypothetical new deal worth Fertitta spending twice the face value when tax is considered? I don't believe they'll think so at Toyota Center.
If only the first year is guaranteed , its essentially a 13.1m (that they can sign him to without BYC issues) expiring contract. Contracts like that have some value. To get anything back that's really going to help you , you do have to add something else but that 13.1m lets you bring back 16.475m(125%+100k). An expiring contract of that size is appealing to a team going nowhere and looking to dump a 2-3 year contract and maybe pick up a draft pick for a player who isn't part of your long term plans.
Shump looked lost out there to me. The whole thing just seemed "awkward". He really only had 2 games where he seemed to contribute over what we might get from a typical player. His vorp was a decent .9 7 seasons ago but with his injury woes not sure he can really contribute beyond what we would get from somebody else.
Because we gave up a first to get him because his contract was shorter than knights . AND we gave up a first and a young player to get Knight because his contract was shorter than Ryans
