kalel123 wrote:ash_k wrote:if True, what is the breaking news here? FO thought getting a player of the level of BI would require a RJ, rightfully so ..It's freaking BI! At the beginning of the season, had anybody told you would be getting BI through Bruce Brown and KO , you would have laughed out loud
The breaking news here is that New Orleans Pelicans valued Bruce Brown's expiring contract more than RJ Barrett. I don't know what the heck kind of trajectory they want to be on but there's no f'ing way anybody in their right mind would think that and I have my own reservations on Barrett's future on this team. It's no wonder Pelicans have been in the s#!thole for so long save for a few years here and there.
The news from the Pels own GM early in the season is that BI was functionally untradable because teams couldn't trade for him and then pay his raise (and injury risk). From the jump, the thought was that all they could get would be a 1st rounder, if that, and likely have to take back some term, which the Pels didn't want to do. BI was a literal afterthought for both Atlanta and Toronto who were targeting salary dumps before switching gears. The Pels got maximum value considering the protections on the pick. Same as the Spurs got when trading us Jak.
RJ, as a guard, is lower in value than BI both positionally and in skillset value. We've yet to see the various types of these players bring back much value, and some have been negative (Hield, Poole, Herro, etc.). Even the "high value" version of these guys in Lavine got a pick back attached to bloat term contracts. Most teams can find tertiary scoring somewhere else in their lineups without spending, and would rather fill gaps without creating more liabilities (see the league wide desire to add OG to a team).
The Pels need to avoid the tax and are likely right to try to use what space they have for cheaper alternatives than RJ considering the scoring they already have.