nikster wrote:Scase wrote:nikster wrote:Exactly. What he was traded for doesn't impact who he is. You can dislike the trade and still understand what he brings to the table.
What he brings to the table is directly tied to the trade, the **** are you talking about? You trade Lebron for a 2nd and that's a steal. You get a 2nd FOR Lebron and you got robbed.
Jak was not worth what he cost us, couple that with the cascading impacts and then it was a bad trade. Trades are evaluated based on the cost, and the quality of the return. His skill set is not good enough to have justified the cost IMO.
You get to say his skill set is the only important thing to discuss, if he was signed outright, and even then it's comparative to his salary. In this case it's both acquisition, and the retention costs. How is this so hard to understand?
Okay you get Lebron as a free agent or a massive haul. You still have a franchise player either way. You now have your roster and move on. What he brings to the court now, what he will bring to the court in the future, and his value as an asset are what matter now.Jak has his uses, but ultimately he's "out of date", centres with zero range are a dying breed, and overall detrimental to a team.
That quote is about him as a player and should be true whether he was a free agent, acquired for as a free agent or playing for another team entirely. Unless you think him being a free agent changes the fact that he's a "dying breed" and "overall detrimental to a team"
If you have to trade your entire team to get Lebron, it is a worthless trade. When you gut a team and result with one player, it's pointless. Not that I even mentioned anything about that. I was trying to make it as simple as a concept for you to understand. When you trade away more than a player is worth, it's usually a bad trade. Now trade away more than a player is worth, AND have that player actively derail your team and the ability to rebuild, now it's REALLY bad. Jak is not the level of player, nor was this team in the position to be throwing away a lotto pick.
And my quote about a dying breed IS relevant no matter the acquisition method, it's just WORSE when you pay salary AND assets to acquire them. Sweet jesus, take a breath and READ.
There are teams out there that can compensate for the limitations of their players. We are not one of them, and even then, most teams don't run that as a starter.
Jokic, shoots 3's.
Embiid, shoots 3's.
AD, not a 3pt shooter, but WAY better than Jak.
Bam, doesn't shoot 3's, Heat have FOUR players who shoot 40%+ from 3.
Sabonis, shoots 3's.
Porzingis, shoots 3's.
Lopez, shoots 3's.
Gobert, doesn't shoot 3s, Wolves have FIVE players who shoot 40%+ from 3, and one of the best scorers in the league in Ant.
Like you can go down the list of the entire NBA, and all you find is either teams that have solid to very good shooting bigs, teams that can heavily compensate for them not being shooters, or bad teams.
Guess which one we rank as.