Isaac
Years ago
Smyth:
"Logistically it didn't work out," he said. "To bring Marcus in for a trial wasn't worth doing. It would only ever have been a short-term fix."
KingJames
Years ago
Yes, another great Smyth decision! NOT! Why not give the guy a go?? Against West Sydney we were struggling to get a defensive rebound and also we have only one inside offensive threat, yet Timmons would have helped us in both departments.
So what is Smyths reason for this? Is it because he thinks it might upset the teams chemistry?? Well the team has no chemistry so why not give him ago! Is he upset he might hurt Ng's feelings? I could care less about Ng's feelings if Timmons adds great value to the team then thats just life! or if Smyth is worried about the future of the team then how about replace Nash with Timmons. Obviously its not a nice move and Nash would probably require therapy for years to come but you dont win friends with salad!
Smyth probably wasted his last chance to turn an average season into a good one.
Jonno
Years ago
I think the Timmons one was a tough one for the club, if they had signed him over Sutton there would have been alot of un happy supporters, on here and else where, and people would continue complaining about losing another young SA player for another older player. I personally liked the idea of bringing in Timmons and when Ng returned move Nash to the 11th man, where he trains and fills in for injuries, or have a squad of 11 and then they select the best 10 each week, as i do think Timmons could of been useful to the team. Replacing Nash with Timmons also doesnt make the sqaud any older and Nash isnt SA born either so they are not issues the club or supporters would have to worry about. But Nash having a 2 year deal could present problems, but him staying on as the 11th man would sort of solve that aslong as Mal is happy to pay 11 guys
auslot
Years ago
correct me if i am wrong jonno but i thought a team could only have ten on there roster except for development players.
otherwise sydney and other teams would have been doing it for years.
i thought you could only have ten and if they where seriously injured they would have to be put on injury waivers(like brad hill) and replaced.
if i am wrong then please disregard this post
Isaac
Years ago
I heard something a while back about the club getting league approval to run a 13 man roster if it was all under the salary cap. Makes Jonno's suggestion workable if true, but not sure if it'd happen.
You need to be a registered user to post from this location. Register here.
Advertise on Hoops to a very focused, local and sports-keen audience. Email for rates and options.
An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 1:57 pm, Fri 19 Apr 2024 | Posts: 968,026 | Last 7 days: 754
