This is amazingly narrow minded and bears little resemblance to reality.
To clarify because I realize this comes off as terse and insulting... It's mostly a reaction to what I find as an overly simplistic and hyperbolic comment that I don't expect around here.
Cho took on a player to help us make the playoffs* as we were a completely different team with Cody healthy vs. a scratch. Plumlee solved two problems, one is that he's a very similar player to Cody so pluggable and two that he allowed us to unload a gimpy Hibbert** and likely-to-opt-in Hawes. Before the Plumlee contract could ever in fact be bad, we used it to trade for a former All Star rim protector that we have wanted. Without that contract (and possibly player position), who knows if we can make that trade with ATL for Howard. Additionally, as I understand the cap at play here, that move pushed us over the cap but kept us under the tax such that we had the max MLE available to us and unclear to me if we'd have had the BAE either. How or that we use the exceptions is less important to me than the fact we gave ourselves the option.
So when I say narrow minded and not bearing resemblance to reality, I am particularly taking issue with the notion that he "saved" himself with what he did as if the act of having that contract to trade wasn't in fact a) part of a tactical plan*** and key to a strategic move that I challenge anyone to suggest has a negative taint to it.
* You can argue that you didn't want us to make the playoffs but your job as a GM in most instances is to do so.
** Hibbert, if you chose to argue was a bad move was a low risk, potentially moderate reward that didn't work due to injury
*** Injury is not something one should be judged on the efficacy of a sign or trade IMO