11-04-2024, 10:28 PM
(11-04-2024, 06:48 PM)F Gump Wrote: GP - "We paid 2 starters and 3 picks for Kyrie, and his stock was at the lowest it's ever been."
100% accurate.
MV in reply - "We paid one first and Din was not considered an asset."
ITEM 1 - GP note that we did pay 3 picks for Kyrie (not 1) was 100% true. The omission of the 2 other picks in reply seems to be intended to deceptively try to make someone look mistaken who was not.
ITEM 2 - GP note that we paid 2 starters was 100% true. "Din was not considered an asset" is imo very wrong, because the facts all say otherwise. When Kyrie trade went down, there's every reason to think SD was an important part of the package BKN wanted, to step into the lineup in place of Kyrie, and persuade KD to want to stay. Not only was SD a starter every game, he was in the middle of a strong year, with strong positives in one way after another - 17.7 ppg, 5.3 apg, pcts of 46/41/82, PER 16.1, age 29, solid 6'5" 2nd ball-handler, great complement to Luka. DAL was ultimately meh that year, of course, but his 46% shooting and 41% on 3s and excellent 2nd ball-handler made him a very good contributor. None of us knows how others viewed him as an asset, but I would wager both DAL and BKN did, and traded accordingly.
I don’t know why you are jumping into this but we are talking about trading for Giannis. Second round picks are immaterial in this conversation. I merely pointed out that only one of those picks is a first (100% accurate) which is the only pick that matters.
Dinwiddie was a starter on a lottery team making 18 mil a year. Less than a year after the trade he was dumped for salary relief, and less than a year and a half after that trade he couldn’t get more than vet min in free agency. Call me skeptical anyone was going to spend a first for him at the time, and anything less is immaterial in a Giannis trade.
The bottom line argument is that Kyrie is not in same ballpark trade value wise compared to Giannis. Care to weigh in on that?