Klomp wrote:shrink wrote:asitter wrote:
Why wouldn't he? They'd be a top two (at worst) team in the East for years? He wants to win, and a nearly guaranteed shot at the ECF every year seems good to me.
But that's the problem too. It's a catch-22.
Say we believe, "why wouldn't he" is a magic risk eraser. Even if it's true, why would BOS pay much?
If BOS is sure, and PG is sure, and IND is sure he will re-sign with Boston, what team is going to bid against BOS?
You've built a "we lose him for nothing" situation, with only one bidder. He is then only worth a one year rental, in a year where he is not putting any team over GSW or CLE.
Just a couple of years ago, a team gave up a No. 1 pick for a player who may not re-sign. He did, but that wasn't guaranteed at the time of the deal. And I'm pretty sure that No. 1 pick was rated higher than the likely No. 1 pick this year is. And Boston is a slightly more appealing sports market than Cleveland to live in.
If Boston wants to go all-in, I don't think there are many reasons not to do this deal. The only one I can think of is if they don't want to keep Thomas past next year and want Fultz to take over the reigns.
I think I've said this three times already, but people need to stop equating the price the Cavs paid for Love to the price Paul George would get.
With his one year deal, LeBron James had a gun to the head of the Cavs, and told them to pay whatever it took to get Love.
If I pulled a gun on you, and said, "buy me that ice cream cone, even it costs $1000, or I'll shoot you!" - it does not mean all ice cream cones cost $1000 to all buyers now.
Nobody has a gun as big as LeBron's, and even if they did, no team would share LeBron's reason to use it. CLE and GSW both aren't desperate to add Paul George because he wins them a ring.
