C_Money wrote:TheGeneral99 wrote:C_Money wrote:
Why don’t you take a look at the 18/19 roster and you’ll find your answer.
Okay, so let's actually examine this.
You wanted us to trade Kawhi before won the championship in 2019? Are you serious? That's one of the most absurd statements I've ever heard. so your logic is that we should have decided not go for the chip because Kawhi was going to leave so we should've traded him earlier?
You wanted to trade Ibaka and Gasol during a season where we had the 2nd seed and were on pace for 60 wins and took Boston to a 7 game series in the 2nd round? Also, thank god we didn't resign Ibaka and Gasol because both were washed the season after.
We didn't trade Lowry for nothing...we got Precious, which was used in the OG trade to get back Barrett and Quickley.
Anybody else that I'm missing here, lol?
Yeah there is. I told you to look up the roster didn’t I?
Gasol, Green, Ibaka had ZERO value. Too old, too washed.
Kawhi had no intention of staying here. Do you think he should have been traded before the playoff run?
Lowry in his mid 30s had very little value. He was the basically the point guard equivalent of Paul Millsap. How much was Millsap worth at the same age? Another comparison could be Mike Conley? He was dealt to the Wolves for fodder. Getting Precious which is about the equivalent of a 1st is fair value.
OG had value. Barrett and Quickley is a really good return.
VanVleet was a better asset than this board thought he was. Getting a mid-1st should have been feasible....not getting that is not a huge deal.
Powell for Trent? Fair tradeoff, especially considering Trent is 5-6 yrs younger.
Siakam was the only asset that was completely bungled which this thread is about. Management backed themselves into a corner and lost all leverage....they should get heat for that. If the Siakam return had been better (Kuminga, Johnson or Mathurin), I would have no issues with the overall asset management.