It is a widely held belief that we are not contenders, and yet there are many who defend our players against trades--- endlessly comparing stats, metrics, etc to make their point. The only stat i see is 18-18. It is not that these points are not valid, but something has to give. Trades are made to make your team better, but sometimes the talent of one player can be equated or bettered by acquiring two players, or a lateral player and a pick.Please leave DH out of this scenario. I will use my favorite hypothetical: We trade Bass (since no one wants to touch JJJ),Moore, and a 2nd round pick to Denver for Mosgov and corey Brewer. Then use RA/PP in a 3-way trade to get a another young Center (magee,hill,etc) and a backup PG(Dragic)and a number 1 pick. Neither player we get is as "good as bass,PP or RA, but the complimentary pieces, potential for success with Rondo, and liklihood that they sign with us, makes the trades positive for us. IMO, free agents want to play--and having PP/RA is a disincentive to them.Sign Green and Illaysova in the off=season. Every time someone posts a trade involving a starter, the individual comparisons defend our guy--- so, then, we stay the same even though we cant contend? Players like RA, PP, are marvelous players, but their inconsistency/age has got to be acknowledged as a part of our struggles. Their OVERALL stats are good, however, thus leading to the "we can't trade him for that guy" reaction. Lets look at the result of just my hypothetical: (assuming KG is not signed-though i would try) Rondo,Brewer,Green, Illaysove,Magee Dragic, Bradley, Pietrus, JJJ/Wilcox, Mosgov Three #1 picks Would this be a contender.. no, not immediately. But it would represent a philosophy change to compliment Rondo, and rely on transition basketball, while still addressing rebounding/interior defense. These young pieces could be used in a package (see Big three)to acquire bigger names the following year as well. Am I off-base here? what do you think?
Be respectful and keep it clean. Thanks.