Chinook wrote:Mr Loggins wrote:Chinook wrote:
I think you did, but I guess that's obvious since I said it in the first place. I don't think PGs have as much value as this trade suggests, but I also think WW tends to push teams to overpay massively in most of their trade threads.
well, considering the examples you gave were
“There are a number in the draft that are preferable and can be paired with a vet mentor guard like Paul or Lowry. There are Morris and Jones as mid-career journeymen. There are prospects from overseas like Evans and Howard.”
I’m going to go ahead and assume 99.9% of basketball fans would agree that none of the above hold any value remotely close to Garland
You can assume what you want, but you're conflating two ideas. Garland can be the best or most valuable player on that list and still not be the only one who can fulfill that role. That Garland's asking price is absurdly high is pretty much the point I'm making. There are other young guards who can shoot and pass, and there are plenty of more age-appropriate players who can do the same.
This trade isn't talking about adding Garland to the existing roster on a mid-sized contract. It's talking about trading away the team's second-best player and multiple unprotected firsts for Garland on a max contract. He doesn't have that value. Not to the Spurs. Not to any team. Those other options paired with Vassell, those picks and much more long-term salary flexibility is a far better bet.
a) you’re moving the goalposts. First you say “there are lot of players like garland”. Then you name a bunch of stuff, none of which are like Garland, and then say “oh of course Garland is better than all this stuff I just named”. Not how it works
