It's a moot point because the Pels aren't trading him for 3 of our 1sts..
Interesting if they were talking with his dad back then (Dec. 8th). Trey's absolutely gone off on us a couple of times since that chat. Might have wanted to show the Spurs what he's capable of adding to the team. I was definitely impressed. Sucks that the asking price will likely be too high.
You don't get him for 3 1sts, you'd have to have Castle or Harper in there as well.
Yes, goes without saying.
It depends on what 1st were talking about. 2027(atl), 2029, and 2032 isn't terrible because 29 and 32 should be late in the first round. Keep the picks with swaps...
Hard to gauge tbh, Wemby’s health is really the be all and all on these topics.
I don't disagree, but you don't avoid deals based on fear that Wemby won't have a normal career.
We criticize BWright a lot, and some are deserved but wouldnt really wanna be in his shoes right now tbh.
SCENE: THE STANDS OF SMOOTHIEKING ARENA (or whatever that place is called now). BRIAN WRIGHT SITS NEXT TO TREY MURPHY JR IN ROW 7.
I would LOVE to be in BWright's shoes, but a lot of y'all would hate it.
1 has not been proven. We dont know if they would have gotten that good of a pick last year or not. It also would have been adventurous for them to tank to make their own pick better when they received it back but they still ended up with the 12th pick.
There was no incentive to tank once they had their pick back. They were 9th at that point, with little chance to get a higher position.
Your making an assumption on that. And the further they would fall the better their lottery odds would be to win the # 1 pick. In this particular instance if they would have lost one more I believe they would have had the worse record between them and dallas and had the # 1 overall pick, So they had more incentive to tank then just pushing off their pick an extra year.
It’s not an assumption, it’s what actually happened, an event in the past. There were like 7-8 hardcore tankers for Flagg last year. Chicago had zero chance to move to a better position. I mean they did actually move from 9 to 12 after they got their pick back, but if the alternate trade involving NO instead of Chicago happens, we don’t get that pick last year. They would have stayed where they were. Why would they win more so their pick goes to us? It’s not an assumption. It’s basic logic.
100% assumption. You are assuming that their record would be different then it was. Since the scenario did not play out with us keeping the pick you are assuming. Once again they had more reason to tank when they had their pick back. as losing gave them better odds to win the lottery and not pushing their pick they owed us to 2026.
