Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="auror, post: 4268674, member: 1329"] Thanks. And I agree with most of what you wrote as well. I would go even further that I don't even necessarily think it was mutual. I think Hurley would have wanted Diggins to stay and continue developing, despite not playing him "enough" this season to satisfy him. At the same time, the staff also knew they were not playing him "enough". There was that article that came out a couple months back The staff absolutely knew they were risking him leaving by playing Gaffney over him and then further choosing to just increase Cole's minutes instead of adding to Diggins' when they reduced Gaffney's. But they also knew that was the best way to win this year and that the downstream risk, Diggins leaving, likely wasn't that major a concern. Upon practice evaluation, he turned out to be extremely replaceable, despite his HS rank. So now we're going about replacing him. So really, it's a two-part risk: the risk that he left in the first place, and the risk that we don't recruit a better transfer for next year (at least Castle coming in 2 years decreases the future risk). We have to fail both to truly fail. The calculation the staff arrived at is that it will not be difficult to get a better replacement for this year because Diggins was that far away and that the future is already solidified. If we get a 2-year Big East starting caliber PG in the portal, we will have improved our roster going forward while at the same time having optimized our chances of winning this past year. In other words, even losing one of the bets, a win-win is certainly possible and in my opinion, the most likely outcome. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,516

Messages: 4,399,599

Members: 10,213

Latest member: Jab