MrDollarBills wrote:SpeedyG wrote:MrDollarBills wrote:
Kuzma shouldn't have lasted past the 6th pick,nevermind the fact that he a) was not going to be drafted by the Nets even if they didn't trade for Russell and b) Kuzma was chosen to complete the conditions of the trade. This is not a case of Russell versus Kuzma nor can the trade be graded as such since the Nets never were going to use the pick on him.
The mental gymnastics that hood is employing in an attempt to throw shade on the Nets are astounding.
Does Billy King get a pass for trading the pick that became Damien Lillard? The Wallace deal gets ripped because how non-sensical it was, but also because the team missed on a very good player that ended up being much better than the player we acquired for the pick.
Furthermore, take a look at this teams philosophy of small ball and three point shooting.
Kuzma is PRECISELY the kind of talent that would have fit this team to a T.
If they missed on him as a prospect, then it's a knock on them. If they liked him but thought Russell was going to be better, that's fine too, unless Kuzma develops to be better than Russell.
Milwaukee still gets haunted by passing on Dirk, even though they were never going to take him with that traded pick.
Dlo must be better or at least as good as Kuzma long term for this to be a good deal for Sean. (not to mention we absorbed Mozgov awful contract in that, so it further adds negative equity to the deal )
You are grasping at straws with all of this.
1) The Nets, nor did 30 other teams, have Kuzma scouted like the Lakers did. That is no way shape or form an indictment against Marks and Russell regardless of how these players end up.
2) How can you compare trading the 6th pick in the draft, which is a high value pick in any year, to trading the 27th pick?
3) Dirk was a top 10 pick. Of course the Bucks are haunted by that. They traded a high value selection for a bust.
The Nets never were going to draft Kuzma. Using him as some standard that D'Angelo Russell has to surpass is not only unfair, but asinine considering the fact that he was not a part of the plan. The trade for Russell was and still is low risk, high reward in all aspects.
It's also fairly intellectually dishonest to compare trading top 10 picks to trading a low value late 20s pick. None of you even knew Kyle Kuzma's name until the summer league...give me a break. Like I said...the hate for Russell is making people do mental gymnastics to justify throwing shade on his acquisition and here we have another case of it.
No, you're clearly overreacting in defending Russell that you're ignoring what is a logical point.
Nets, almost every other year, have been reminded that the pick we sold...ended up being Kyle Korver. Doesn't matter that it was a 2nd rounder. The Nets badly needed shooting at the time and we essentially dumped that pick.
Did the Pacers make a good deal trading for Hill and giving up the pick that ended up being Kawhi? Or does it not matter since it was a pick in the 20s? according to you, it doesn't. But fact is anytime anyone in Indiana (and I was there for a few months), anytime anyone talked about Hill...Kawhi was brought up. and Hill was largely a productive player for them.
It has nothing to do with where a guy was taken. when you get rid of a player in exchange for another, they are linked and will be judged bases on their relative success.
heck Nets were getting killed for letting Yogi go to make room for Din, and that's basically dleague players.
The same is true of Russell and Kuzma.
You dont think people would be laughing at the Lakers for trading Russell (if he blows up) and ball/Kuzma fails?
Works both ways. No ifs and or buts about it
Bless the man if his heart and his land are one ~ FrancisM, R.I.P. 3/6/09
