06-13-2022, 02:18 PM
(06-13-2022, 02:02 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: I think this is fair, and I think I'd do it, with reluctance.
BUT (and this will hopefully make my "trade this pick" argument more clear), I'd first TRY to just use #26 (no swap) to get it done. And that's specifically because I value the draft, ironically. I don't want to complicate FUTURE drafts in such a deal if I can avoid it, personally.
Do you think that ruins it for IND? Or, what if this pick (#26) is the one that changes hands, and the right to swap a future pick is included? I would (slightly) prefer either of those options to yours, although I think you've got a good sense of the valuation here.
Who knows what the true value here is. Certainly not me.
I don't think Indy nor the half dozen teams looking for a center care where our preferences lie. The cost is the cost. You either pay it or you don't. I get the desire (especially this time of year), to avoid complicating future drafts. But Turner is a massive upgrade to what we had. Not a single piece of the outgoing contributed anything to the WCF's run and we are also essentially adding another player in THJ for all intents and purposes. That is a lot of incremental improvement.
So, we add Turner and Hardaway to the six who brought logged major minutes for two complimentary pieces a pick swap and 2025? I wouldn't let 2025 stand in the way of that. I'd do it and sign the extension with Turner, sign Brunson and call it a day.