Btw.: With Evans, Lawson, DC, Ben as free agents, Galloway (player option), Gay (player option) and Afflalo as a likely trade candidate - is a roster spot really worth waiving one of your presumed leaders and role models for the armada of young guys you aquired?
Depends on what moves are being planned. We have 4 picks from last year, 4 this year (assuming BB comes over), WCS, GT, and KK. Assuming Galloway opts in, that's 12 roster spots (hope I haven't missed anyone).
If we acquire picks for some bad contract(s), that's at least 2 more roster spots (one for the contract, and one for the pick). So, unless we are trading away more players than we are receiving, we are pretty close to a full roster, with rookies playing both 1 and 3 (assuming we pick both positions in the draft). We'd most likely like to add a veteran, at least at the 1. So, yes, the roster spot has value.
That doesn't necessarily mean it was a smart move. However, I don't think it was a cost saving move, as is being projected, since we'll have trouble hitting the floor.
As for Evans, Lawson, etc., they are free agents. Unless we plan to resign any of them, there is nothing for us to really do about them (other than potentially releasing their cap hold. This is something beyond my understanding and needs someone like Capt to explain). We needed to make a decision on Tolliver. The management obviously thought that the roster spot had more value than his leadership.
Finally, I think trading away any of our youngsters right now would not be a smart move. We are obviously not in play for a star, that could justify giving up on a young player. Most of our kids have little value around the league so far. Another year, with lot of playing time can help them establish themselves (the reverse is also possible of course). Right now, we'll get virtually nothing of value for them. So, unless it's a rare scenario of a clear win, holding on to our guys might be the best short term move, in which case again, roster spot has value.