NetsWorld wrote:Papi_swav wrote:vincecarter4pres wrote:Unsure why you seem to give Mitchell this bad teammate, ball dominating chucker, playoff failure moniker?
I’m also unsure why Garland is being touted as some awesome off ball player and great defender?
Also, you think Garland’s asset cost would be lower?
Don’t get me wrong, I like Garland a lot, and would welcome him here with open arms, but I’m just not sure I agree with your evaluations of the two, and comparison between them.
I'm not trying to crap on Mitchell, I just don't think he's the type of guy we can win with, and I don't like the idea of giving up 3 plus picks and assets just to obtain him so we can give him a super max, I don't think he's worth that and I don't see us going that far with him. So we'll have to give up 3-5 1st round picks plus Cam Thomas, CamJ (i dont mind) and maybe a guy like Clowney. Well come to think of it that's not a bad package lol but still, we'll have to give him a boat load of cash.
I also just think Garland is a better fit, we need a point guard and I feel like Garland has more potential but it's stunted with Mitchell being there. TBH I rather someone else than either of these guys but if we're looking at Cleveland as potential trade partners, I think we should go after Garland. It's just my opinion so yea I can be wrong. And ofcourse I know Mitchell is the better player, I just think Garland makes more sense for us imo. But I'm sure Nets are looking at Mitchell, we've heard all the rumors already
Call me crazy but I can see Milwaukee potentially trading Giannis if they cannot seal the deal with Lillard and him. Maybe not next year but perhaps the year after. Anything is possible.
Far more likely (& probably inevitable) that they trade Dame and a pairing with Giannis becomes a revolving door with him being the constant in Milwaukee
