RealGM

Klay just went down with a season ending injury again. Klay has two more years on his deal than Blake. Would you do a straight up even trade of Blake for Klay hoping Klay recovers and is back to his regular form next season?

bstein14 wrote:Klay just went down with a season ending injury again. Klay has two more years on his deal than Blake. Would you do a straight up even trade of Blake for Klay hoping Klay recovers and is back to his regular form next season?

In a second

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

Warriors won’t do Klay like that.

Not if hes got two more years then Blake. Dude just had the worst injury in basketball which will keep him from being back to form for almost 2 years alone, hes over 30 and just blew out his ACL causing him to miss last year as well.

Trading a talented player with injury issues and a big salary for another talented player who won't be available for at least a year and has a longer, more expensive contract?

No thanks.

Nope

For the record I actually voted yes- call me nuts. I probably am.

I really like Klay.

Totally get the opposite position though. I'm second guessing it myself- I'm just a sucker for that kind of shooting.

The dubs obviously wouldn't do this, but I wouldn't either. We are rebuilding. We aren't going to be trading for 30+ yr old stars with big, longterm contracts.

God no.

He's currently hurt with one of the worst injuries in all of sports. Cost more per season than Blake does, and has 2 more years on his contract to boot.

Doing things like this is how you stay on the perpetual 35 win/season treadmill.

Snakebites wrote:For the record I actually voted yes- call me nuts. I probably am.

I really like Klay.

Totally get the opposite position though. I'm second guessing it myself- I'm just a sucker for that kind of shooting.

I really like Klay as well. He's the exact type of SG I think the Pistons need and that I've been looking for us to acquire. His injuries scare me, but I might make this trade, even with two more years on it.

I would actually do it if we were trying to compete in a season or 2. I think our window is so far from now that both players are irrelevant. Let's just sell Blake for young assets and continue the teardown

Let me get this straight.

Would I trade for a guy who's owed $156 million over the next 4 years, and who, next season, will be playing for the first time in 3 years & coming off both a torn acl and a ruptured achilles?



No.

.

No way. Klay is unfortunately screwed.

What? No guy has just had big injuries the two seasons in a row and hes 30 now. You don't make moves for guys like that. Also were rebuilding here.

I love Klay's game, but this is two season ending injuries in a row (on different sides of his body) and he's not exactly a young gun anymore (he'll likely be 32 by the time he's finishing rehab).

There's a real chance he never plays meaningful NBA minutes again, or is at least a shadow of his former self. I know it's easy to say "well, if he DOES..." but we'd be hinging a lot of our rebuild strategy on that given the length of his contract, and I think that's too big of a gamble

I mean, rationally you guys are right of course.

Even one of those 2 injuries would be a huge red flag.

I mean I’d probably do it just because I love Klay


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hard pass. He's got two more years than Blake at 40.1 and 43.2. Might be the worst contract in the league right now.

thesack12 wrote:God no.

He's currently hurt with one of the worst injuries in all of sports. Cost more per season than Blake does, and has 2 more years on his contract to boot.

Doing things like this is how you stay on the perpetual 35 win/season treadmill.

^this

An injury-diminished Klay on a bad contract is much more integrable than Blake under the same circumstances. Klay at minimum now is still going to be an elite floor spacer. Would want a pick to take back, but I don't even think the Warriors do this straight up.