First time poster here...
I have been reading for awhile and it seems that two distinct camps exist: keep the roster with minor tweaks or make major overhauls (trade Tyreke, etc.). It seems that some people suggest trading players for various reasons and others argue that we have to wait and see how players develop before "selling low" on them.

I understand that most are pretty upset with the management decisions/situation, but here is my thought: us fans are simple observers. I think it easy to see positives and negatives in players. Take Tyreke (great athletic ability, questionable shooting and floor management abilities). I think it is safe to say that every other GM knows this (and probably more) about each of our players.

My point is this: you don't make trades because of underperformance, etc. You make trades because of (a) inside knowledge (e.g. Player X does not work hard or Player Y does not get along with teammates or Player Z does not appear to understand the game/learn quickly in practice) or because of (b) an ability to improve the roster. If one of Marcus or Tyreke (both best as starting SG's on this team; even if they may not be starting on top end teams) can be traded for an upgrade at a position of need (e.g. SF), then you have to consider it. GP has acquired some assets and now he needs to build a team. Under a constrained budget, we should expect one of the following: (a) keep the relatively cheap rookie contracts and bank on improvement or (b) very high risk/high reward deals to attempt to get better (e.g. pick up some type of veteran who has personality issues). With limited funds, GP has to consider both paths to try and improve the team. Neither path is a bad one, as long it is exectued in the right way. Think about how many new players were brought in the same season (!) when we became a playoff team (Webber, Divac, Williams, Stojakovic, others I think). Webber and Williams were both very high risk/high reward acquisitions at the time...