To follow up from previous thread:
Homerclase wrote:1. To be frank, you’ve missed my point entirely.
2. To be frank, because I post something you disagree with doesn’t make my posts something that belongs on the GB
3. To be frank, maybe you spend too much time on the GB yourself.
4. To be frank, if you want to have an actual discussion fine, otherwise go F yourself
You may be right about my time on the GB.
That said, as far as an actual discussion, I think what I said on what we'd have to give up is fair, and you simply chose not to respond to it, so I'll lay it out this way:
1) Who is sincerely beating a deal revolved around Brown/Rozier/Morris/filler/combination of picks? Again, MAYBE Saric/Covington/#10 can compete, or at least the Celtics force the Sixers to include Fultz (who again, do Spurs really want him)?
2) To reply to what you mentioned in another post, why would the Spurs make negotiations more painful for the Celtics than say, the Lakers? By trading to the Celtics, the Spurs get Kawhi out of conference, and if I'm to believe what I read on the GB's topic on Kawhi, supposedly the Spurs just don't love the Lakers in general. Woj said on SVG's SportsCenter hour that Lonzo to the Spurs probably isn't a great fit, so perhaps the Spurs make the Lakers give up someone else they wouldn't want to? If the Spurs were in the East maybe you'd possibly have a point, but if the Celtics can give the best deal and it wouldn't have to include Tatum, why would the Spurs say no if it means they don't have to deal with the Lakers?