(11-05-2024, 11:47 AM)F Gump Wrote: The fact that you take offense at being called out for shading the truth, when you were shading the truth to try to "win" the discussion, sorry but I don't have any sympathy. Just be better.
Your points that you used that they only traded a 1st, that was not really the case. And that Din was not an asset, that was not true. The convo was about the NBA thinking, and Kyrie did yield 3 picks and 2 starters (both of whom would have had good value to BKN, based on BKN needs and the players' play) at a time when his market value was low.
To add an overlooked plus re Kyrie, the fact that he is NOT on a supermax adds a lot of value. That matters way more than fans realize.
In fact, wasn't the discussion supposed to be about the way the NBA sees value in trades (rather than what WE value)? The idea that 2nds don't matter and have no bearing is absurd, when teams instead chase them, and in an era where 2-ways (with teams having 3) and 2nd-round salary exceptions and hard caps (with different accounting for 2nds) and rostering fewer than 15 because of money issues are vital issues for a FO that are made MUCH easier with 2nds. And the idea that a starter, healthy, 29, a BIG ball-handler who can (and does) create offense and score, and playing VERY well for his 2nd year in a row after getting out of the WAS hellhole, that he would not be desirable to a team who needed someone like that, that's even more absurd.
This is ridiculous. If you think a couple of seconds have any bearing on a Giannis trade you have lost all perspective. And when somebody says he cost three picks and the response says one first, the implication is clarification, not contradiction. I think you are being very pedantic with this.
So you called me out for stating an opinion as fact, and now you are stating your opinion as fact. Din being useful to that team is a different conversation than saying he was worth both 18 mil in cap and significant assets.