12-20-2024, 07:47 PM
(12-20-2024, 07:43 PM)F Gump Wrote: You might as well have said "as long as the sun doesn't come up in the morning." The reality is that Lively is fragile, which means you need a brute to bang with big centers and wear them down AND you need someone reliable when Lively gets hurt anyway AND you need to be very limited in the minutes you play Lively.
A plan based on playing Lively as your primary center for long minutes and expecting him to be available almost every game is suicide, doomed to fail.
Trading Gafford would be a major mistake, and it's not a mistake I think they'll make (or even consider) because they realize all those things.
Gafford has flaws, but I think "not having Gafford" has infinitely more flaws.
Jones does have appeal, but not that it really matters, as reports say he really isn't on the market at all. Of course, those mindsets could change.
Yeah, I mean it's fine if we disagree. It's not an anti-Gafford sentiment, it's just that I think Jones would help more, and significantly so.
Someone right after me suggested that he might go for 3 firsts, for comparison. I'm just saying that if such a trade were available, Daniel Gafford, who is not even the best player at his position on my team, would NOT be a hold up for me, personally. I have no idea what's real or made up out there, but the Vegas odds from a week or two back did get my attention.