This is the deepest team that we've had in years and I'm thrilled about it.

What's got me confused is the number of you guys that keep suggesting that we dump our depth (and expiring deals) for 2nd round picks. Some of these suggestions propose that we even help our Eastern rivals.

I can understand being concerned about guys not being happy being on the inactive list, but if they can rotate them around enough to keep them involved and in shape, let them be a little unhappy, they're getting paid.

So the point of this thread is, is there such a thing as being "too deep"? Do we need to resort to selling off assets at a discount because we're afraid that guys on the inactive list will pout?

i think the fear in some instances is that flip will not play the players who SHOULD get the minutes, simply because there's a vet sitting behind them not getting minutes. (case in point, flip murray and rodney stuckey)

however murray has seemingly been taken out of the rotation recently and with stuckey coming back soon, it seems that could be a near permament thing. i can't imagine flip trying to play murray at all now that rodney is back. and that's how it should be really.

JMO

I don't want any roster moves. However, if we do bring Webber back I'd rather get a pick for Brezec than simply cut him.

I agree with you Glenn, as long as "depth" really means "depth." Having someone on the bench who only does one thing doesn't really amount to depth.

It seems to me that the only reason to cut guys with expiring deals at this point is to save $.

If they are unhappy with the current payroll level and are unwilling to take back any salary/years in a trade, then yes, they'd need to get a pick(s) in return.

Hopefully that is not the case, but if it is, hopefully they can get 1st round picks, not 2nds.

Starting to feel a bit like the Derrick Coleman situation. Hopefully we're not cutting any of these guys to save a few bucks on the per diem and the hotel bills on the road. Unlike Coleman, besides Lindsey, these guys all have years left to play in this league.

Will there be unhappy egos in the locker room if guys don't get sufficient minutes??

I doubt Flip Murray enjoys not playing...as will Hayes once Stuckey gets fully integrated into the rotation...

One things for sure, you nailed it right on the head Glenn...

This is by far as deep as we have been since I can even remember...

It's a good problem to have...

I suggested dumping some of our depth just to get some key guys playing time. How good is a bench player who never plays? You have to see a certain number of minutes to gel with your teammates and to hit your comfort level. You also have to give younger players some pt to develop and to see what they've got. I want players more than insurance policies.

So it sounds like that's one vote for "yes, there is such a thing as being too deep".

I'm confused about how you say that you'd trade guys to get others PT, but at the same time you say that these guys that might get moved aren't playing anyways, so how does that free up PT?

There is no such thing as too deep on the bench.

Tell Flip like it is. When Stuckey comes back he's riding the pine. If Billups goes down than he'll start for him and keep the rest of the rotation in place. Otherwise enjoy the ride. Who else is offended? Brezec and Hermann seem like team players, and you can't expect minutes from day one anyway. Tell them to beat out Hayes and Max for minutes, if they can. If not, it's their own fault.

One thing I've noticed, is that the past few teams that have won the Title, when you look at their rosters, they pretty much have a sub-par starting 5 on their bench...


Brezec
Maxiell
Hayes
Afflalo
Stuckey

that alone could probably get the 8 seed in the East...

8th seed might be pushing it, but I bet that 5 beats any 5 on another team's bench in a 7 game series.

There is such a thing as too much depth if not used properly or if your coach doesn't trust this depth when it's a big game. It seems like the bigger the game the less he uses this supposed team strength. No matter what the matchup if it's a big game he'll play his starters big minutes. Bench be damned! And we've seen what that accomplishes (75 point efforts in playoff games).

Chuck Daly had faith in his bench and played the guys that either provided the greatest mismatch against that particular opponent or he rode the hot guy. It's why you had a team that had 8 players averaging over 20 minutes per game in 1989 (not including Buddha Edwards)

Flip doesn't do this, it's do or die with the starters! That will fail. Our starters aren't good enough.

Therefore if we have this depth and we have a coach that doesn't know how to use it , it does makes sense to try and trade some of it to get a legit NBA superstar.

Easier said than done. Either the coach or the depth must go.

(ps- Glenn, that is absolute blasphemy to put Vinnie Johnson and Flip Murray in the same graphic.)

(ps- Glenn, that is absolute blasphemy to put Vinnie Johnson and Flip Murray in the same graphic.)

Some guy named "TWilson" posted it at Pistons.com in the "wallpaper" section.

And I agree that Flip certainly shortens the bench in big games.

8th seed might be pushing it, but I bet that 5 beats any 5 on another team's bench in a 7 game series.


:cogent:

This is a basic truth here: Detroit's bench wins games, but they're not going out on the floor until the opponent's bench is out there too. So the amount of time that bench players get is going to vary widely. If Detroit plays Boston, don't expect to see a lot of Amir Johnson. And if Detroit plays New Jersey, be prepared to see more of Lindsey Hunter and Arron Afflalo.

So it sounds like that's one vote for "yes, there is such a thing as being too deep".

I'm confused about how you say that you'd trade guys to get others PT, but at the same time you say that these guys that might get moved aren't playing anyways, so how does that free up PT?

By "not playing" I mean on a regular basis. That being said, most players on the bench (plus the 3 extra - since we have) will all normally see SOME pt. If we really have no need for them, I would rather trim the roster and give that small amount of pt to players who are developing and actually see regular rotation time. Afflalo is proof that as he got some almost every game, he became more comfortable and looks better and better. Amir hasn't seen consistent enough time to get to that point (although there are other factors too).

In other words, we can keep Flip Murray and give him 20 minutes over the next 10 games to keep him from complaining or we can dump him and give those 20 minute to Afflalo and Stucky to help them develop. I'd rather dump Flip since he won't be around next season. That is too much depth, IMO.

I suppose that I can understand people wanting to move Murray once Stuckey is back and ready to contribute (even though I'd rather have the insurance), but why should we have to "dump" him for the next Sammy Mejia?

There is such a thing as too much depth if not used properly or if your coach doesn't trust this depth when it's a big game. It seems like the bigger the game the less he uses this supposed team strength. No matter what the matchup if it's a big game he'll play his starters big minutes. Bench be damned! And we've seen what that accomplishes (75 point efforts in playoff games).


But that's not too much depth. That's bad coaching. What you're talking about is a debate between putting all your eggs in one basket (great starters but weak bench), or having the talent spread out more (maybe a marginal starter or two with a stronger bench)...that's when a liability like Flip comes into play. Flip not using his bench doesn't effect the 12th-14th men. Flips poor rotations have a more direct impact on players 8-10 really.

But that's not too much depth. That's bad coaching.
So what you're saying is: "There is such a thing as too much depth, for the Detroit Pistons."

So what you're saying is: "There is such a thing as too much depth, for the Detroit Pistons."
No, there is such a thing as a coach who doesn't know how to use it.

A good recipe for a bad cook is still a good recipe. It's not the recipe maker's fault that the cook can't execute it properly. Unless the recipe maker also hired the cook (in this case Dumars).

recipes are taking WTF by storm

copied from the Boston game thread:


ASB said on 1270 that Stuckey will probably start out getting 5-8 minutes per game, and could lead to about 17-20 minutes per game as the season goes on...

He expects him to take minutes away from Jarvis and Rip or Chauncey...

I know it's probably a good problem to have, but I think somebody needs to be traded for a draft pick or something, we're going to have guys on inactive who would normally see decent minutes on probably 80% of teams in the NBA...

If Herrmann ever sees the floor, than Jarvis will definitely not play anymore, and it's going to be tough to find minutes for Lindsey, and Afflalo on top of that...

And what about Amir?? My guess is we won't be seeing him much until the division is wrapped up...

First off, we have to see how Stuckey does. Second, it all depends on the deal offered. If Houston offers us Battier for Hayes, Brezec and Flip do it (relax, that won't happen, i was just using it as an example). I wouldn't mind a deal that consolidates 3 decent bench players for 1 better one (provided Stuckey is ok). But I think you have to assess them on a case by case basis. I don't want to simply trade our expiring bench depth unless you get a good solid player you want here that is better.

No, there is such a thing as a coach who doesn't know how to use it.

A good recipe for a bad cook is still a good recipe. It's not the recipe maker's fault that the cook can't execute it properly. Unless the recipe maker also hired the cook (in this case Dumars).
I know this sounds semantic, but I'm pretty sure there's a difference. For a team that has Flip Saunders as a coach, there is a level of depth that can actually create more problems than it solves, due to bruised egos and neglect. It doesn't matter whose fault it is.

WTF is Joe going to do? Replace Flip if the roster is full of great players who are misused or underused? We already know he's not going to do that. You seem to be under the impression that the GM's choice of players always trumps the GM's choice of coach, and that isn't necessarily so. If you're committed primarily to your coach (as they are in SA, LA, and NY lol) your most important job as GM will be to put together a team can be used by the coach to whom you've committed.

There is no such thing as a "good recipe." There are only recipes that achieve excellence in the hands of a good chef.

I'd rather leave our roster exactly as it is. Let Flip figure out the rotations, as scary as that is, and go from there. I've shown I hate FlipM as much as the next guy, he drives me completely insane when he starts playing me-first ball. But I'd much rather keep him on our inactive list as an insurance policy in case someone gets hurt than trade him for basically nothing. If someone comes to us with a solid player or a 1st round pick for him, make the trade, otherwise just leave it. Why fuck with our chemistry?

I think we're making progress here.

I think we're making progress here.

Yes, we've established that "too much depth" is just code for "I don't like Flip Saunders"

No there really can be too much depth. Here are some examples:

Do you play Brezec who might not be here next season or do you play Samb who needs experience badly. Playing either could take time away from Amir who also needs seasoning. If Webber is brought back the situation becomes even worse.

Do you play Hayes or Hermann? Both will be FA's after this season. We want one in the rotation but who? If Hayes doesn't play, will it cause locker room issues? Who do you put on inactive to get Hermann on the active list?

Do you play Stucky or Hunter? What about Stucky or Afflalo? Do you play Flip Murray to try to keep his trade value up?

Do you play Maxiell or Amir? So far we have seen that Max is a beast but Amir has barely seen the floor.

These are problems with too much depth where we can only send 1 out of 15 guys to the NBDL (Samb) and it causes pt to get spread out too much where it doesn't really benefit players nearly as much as giving more time to fewer players.

Don't get me wrong, having all of this depth is nice but I want to see us developing our young players because some of them look damn nice. I also want to see if some of the players that we have are worth keeping. If Hermann is good, dump Hayes since we won't likely re-sign him anyways. If Stucky can play, deactivate Hunter or lose Flip. Afflao has shown that he can play some point and we can always use Prince as a point forward. I simply want to see 8 or 10 players getting most of the PT.

I wouldn't mind a deal that consolidates 3 decent bench players for 1 better one (provided Stuckey is ok).


I agree.

So we have 15 guys but we can only have 12 active.

Samb is in the D-League, although he's injured right now anyway.
I say as soon as Stuckey proves he's ready to go, we deactivate FlipM and Hunter. Our backup guards are Stuckey and Afflalo with Hayes able to contribute at SG if needed. We let Hayes and Herrmann fight for backup SF, then we have Max and Amir backing up PF and some C and Brezec as the main backup C. That sounds just fine to me, no? Please, someone point out the flaws in this?