AROUND the NBA:

[F Gump]

They need to move on from Harris. He played well and was the secondary scorer they needed for about 3 or 4 games, then fell off a cliff the last 3. His deal comes off the books, so they need a younger, more consistent scorer and another shot creator to take pressure off Cade, who was clearly worn down at the end. 

I do recognize Harris has been overpaid for years. So it may be a plus to lower the overall payroll, and move forward from there without him. But .... 

"Moving on" from Harris may not be a practical answer, because if they do so, they don't get cap room (to add the "better replacement") in exchange. So if they don't re-sign him, they merely take him out of the equation. 

I think this is one of those roster challenges that GM's get paid the big bucks to handle, because I don't think it's as easy as saying 'We will get rid of him because we want what he does, but better.' From where?

Yes, tossing him away may make them better - the very same roster, except no Harris - but when they do so, they won't be gifted a "younger, more consistent scorer" or "another shot creator" by doing so. They will have to find that player internally, or perhaps with an MLE. Or have an even worse solution than Harris.