HartfordWhalers wrote:I would take the #1 pick over Bridges. But maybe I'm just a homer...
+1. Give me 4 years of rookie scale contract and higher upside over an excellent role player who will be overpaid in 2 years
Moderators: loserX, Andre Roberstan, HartfordWhalers, BullyKing, Texas Chuck, MoneyTalks41890, Mamba4Goat, pacers33granger, Trader_Joe
HartfordWhalers wrote:I would take the #1 pick over Bridges. But maybe I'm just a homer...
HartfordWhalers wrote:I would take the #1 pick over Bridges. But maybe I'm just a homer...
TheBrooklynKidd wrote:MoneyTalks41890 wrote:TheBrooklynKidd wrote:
It is relevant.
My point is that #1 in this draft (Sarr) is the equivalent of #6-7 in a typical draft.
As in not good enough to trade Bridges for IMO.
You’re free to disagree of course but again coming from someone who wants him moved.
Amen & Ausar > 2024 #1 >/= Bridges
One of Sarr’s best case scenarios is Nic Claxton.
I have Bridges as more valuable than Nic Claxton.
So I would have to disagree there.
TheBrooklynKidd wrote:Just quote me next time if you’re gonna try to take a jab.
MoneyTalks41890 wrote:TheBrooklynKidd wrote:MoneyTalks41890 wrote:
Amen & Ausar > 2024 #1 >/= Bridges
One of Sarr’s best case scenarios is Nic Claxton.
I have Bridges as more valuable than Nic Claxton.
So I would have to disagree there.
Eh I think that’s closer to Sarr’s worst case. Sarr’s best case includes developing a shot which if he has the defense he’s projected with is going to make him an easier plug and play than Clax, whose lack of shot really limits his upside.
MyUniBroDavis wrote: he was like YALL PEOPLE WHO DOUBT ME WILL SEE YALLS STATS ARE WRONG I HAVE THE BIG BRAIN PLAYS MUCHO NASTY BIG BRAIN BIG CHUNGUS BRAIN YOU BOYS ON UR BBALL REFERENCE NO UNDERSTANDO
HartfordWhalers wrote:TheBrooklynKidd wrote:Just quote me next time if you’re gonna try to take a jab.
I really don't see how my comment required quoting you. That seems awfully full of yourself to insist on that.
(This is now a jab, so quoting you as you requested.)
TheBrooklynKidd wrote:HartfordWhalers wrote:TheBrooklynKidd wrote:Just quote me next time if you’re gonna try to take a jab.
I really don't see how my comment required quoting you. That seems awfully full of yourself to insist on that.
(This is now a jab, so quoting you as you requested.)
You statement was clearly meant to mock my post.
You can play dumb or own up to it. That’s all.
Poor behavior from a mod in my opinion.
HartfordWhalers wrote:TheBrooklynKidd wrote:HartfordWhalers wrote:
I really don't see how my comment required quoting you. That seems awfully full of yourself to insist on that.
(This is now a jab, so quoting you as you requested.)
You statement was clearly meant to mock my post.
You can play dumb or own up to it. That’s all.
Poor behavior from a mod in my opinion.
Again, I think your level of fullness of yourself here is absurd.
HadAnEffectHere wrote:TheBrooklynKidd wrote:Slim Charless wrote:
I keep seeing this. Do the Hawks not already have 2 defensive bigs that can't score in 00 and Capela? Did they they trade them and I missed it? Why exactly do they need a 3rd one.....
I think they take Risacher-his shooting can help spread things out for whichever of DJM/Trae they decide to keep.
The Wizards OTOH should be all over Sarr. That seems like a perfect match.
Rockets should package that pick along with some of their youth and get a superstar.
Sarr is a much better prospect than Risacher and slots in well in between Johnson and Okongwu.
Sarr is literally just "what if Okongwu was tall"
They have no shot of playing together.
But Sarr is so raw that he won't play more than bench minutes for the first year or two.
They need to move Capela for luxury tax reasons already.
HartfordWhalers wrote:I would take the #1 pick over Bridges. But maybe I'm just a homer...
zimpy27 wrote:Murray+1 for Brown seems like Celtics would have to do it
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
Texas Chuck wrote:Disagreeing with your opinion is not taking a jab. Making a mountain out of that and trying to insuinate someone is a bad mod is just doubling down on silliness.
You get to set whatever high value on your player you want. Others can disagree without you taking and making it personal. Though sadly when it comes of a name in blue some of you think we are obligated to agree with you or we are attacking you.
Lame
zimpy27 wrote:Murray+1 for Brown seems like Celtics would have to do it
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
Texas Chuck wrote:So on topic with what led to that derail.... I could see Atlanta moving the #1 overall pick in a deal that brought them Bridges. He really is a good fit for them and with some other moves I think they could talk themselves into being very competitive right away.
What I can't see is why Brooklyn turns that down. Bridges value is only continuing to go down. So much of his value is in that cheap contract. And contenders don't want him to be a first option, so just because he put up numbers for 20 games after the KD trade as a forced 1st option, doesn't mean he returns first option return. Because he's not that guy.
So flip him for an elite prospect, get even cheaper for your big FA plans and stars weren't coming to Brooklyn to play with him anyway. Utah posters are making similar mistakes with Lauri. His value is going down not up. And I just don't see how him on a max is great value or leading Utah to contention. He's not getting better just more expensive.
I know its tough to be a mediocre team with a good, but not great young player and to want outrageous return because well he's our best player. But asset management is vital. And if you could get #1 overall this year? Yeah I'm doing that. Maybe the guy is never as good as Bridges. Obviously. If it was a guarantee well Atlanta never considers it. But the path to contention seems clearer for sure.
Return to Trades and Transactions