Printable View
[QUOTE=Yes or No;15042170]That's not how that works at all. You're talking about with the benefit of 100% hindsight.
Proctor is without question directly addressing what it obviously was in the moment, which was pure stupidity. Speculation wasn't needed. We didn't need a year or 5 to see how it would play out. It was just immediately bad.[/QUOTE]
Your premise, that the actual results of the trade don't matter, is completely wrong.
[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;15042173]Your premise, that the actual results of the trade don't matter, is completely wrong.[/QUOTE]
No.
People were talking about how that trade was bad at the time but there weren't AS MANY people saying it was the worst trade in NBA history.
That's what we're talking about. It didn't even require hindsight. It didn't require waiting. Everyone knew how atrociously bad it was in the moment. That's what makes it the worst.
Long term results matter but that's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about that this was the most obviously bad trade ever to everyone in the world except for Nico and there has never been a worse in the moment trade that literally everyone saw coming a mile away except for one guy.
We're talking about the fact that even below average IQ people could see how bad this was. It was nearly universal.
Well hopefully as the Mavs continue to suck they will still cheer to fire Nico, even though he's already been fired.
[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;15042173]Your premise, that the actual results of the trade don't matter, is completely wrong.[/QUOTE]
The discussion is clearly about the logic behind the trade when it happened. Obviously, the SGA trade is catastrophic in hindsight, but at the time, trying to lock up a guy in contention as the best in the world and coming off a FMVP run in Kawhi while also adding another two way player coming off a career year and an All-NBA 1st Team nod in PG made a lot of sense. The move ended up disastrously, but in 2019 the Clippers were seen as being the title favorite after making those moves
That is not in the same stratosphere as trading your 25 year old franchise player, coming off a Finals run, essentially straight up for a guy 6 years older approaching his mid 30's who's constantly injured. There's a reason this trade got so much criticism when it happened, I bet you couldn't find a fraction of the criticism when the Clippers signed Kawhi & added PG.
Another thing to keep in mind that Kawhi wanted PG13 so it was kind of a package deal. Obviously it's been a disaster but i dont remember people at the time making a big deal about SGA being part of it.
How good or bad a trade is should always be judged by the quality of the assets. It's a bit of a contradiction that in this thread we have people talking about what a bad signing Beal was for Washington and using the Phoenix failure as justification but somehow can't discredit the Clipper side of the George trade when the immediate return was terrible for them and ended up being amongst the best ever for the Thunder. They might have a dynasty of they can survive the second apron and they got it off of trading a guy that misses 20 to 30 games every year. The KG/Pierce trade is normally regarded as terrible for the Nets because of how the picks they have up turned out. If we just evaluate the trade in the moment, "Two best players on an NBA champion for a few future firsts from a playoff team. Yeah they're a little old but for the next year or two we got a shot a championship. Let's go!" So do we say that trade wasn't so bad for the Nets now?
[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;15042181]How good or bad a trade is should always be judged by the quality of the assets. It's a bit of a contradiction that in this thread we have people talking about what a bad signing Beal was for Washington and using the Phoenix failure as justification but somehow can't discredit the Clipper side of the George trade when the immediate return was terrible for them and ended up being amongst the best ever for the Thunder. They might have a dynasty of they can survive the second apron and they got it off of trading a guy that misses 20 to 30 games every year. The KG/Pierce trade is normally regarded as terrible for the Nets because of how the picks they have up turned out. If we just evaluate the trade in the moment, "Two best players on an NBA champion for a few future firsts from a playoff team. Yeah they're a little old but for the next year or two we got a shot a championship. Let's go!" So do we say that trade wasn't so bad for the Nets now?[/QUOTE]
Those people were saying how bad the Beal deal was from day 1. lol. Terrible comparison.
And the problem with the Paul George trade is that Kawhi allegedly wasn't coming if they didn't get George. So it was only SGA + picks for George on a very surface level.
Kblaze you are being kinda cringe
Stop having lil dick syndrom and just admit you were wrong. It’s not even a big deal.
You being weird.
[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;15042165]wut[/QUOTE]
What's confusing you?
[QUOTE=Yes or No;15042184]Those people were saying how bad the Beal deal was from day 1. lol. Terrible comparison.[/QUOTE]
The time stamp on the criticism has nothing to do with whether or not the trade or signing was good. You're commenting on irrelevant details.
[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;15042188]The time stamp on the criticism has nothing to do with whether or not the trade or signing was good. You're commenting on irrelevant details.[/QUOTE]
Imagine playing semantics trying to defend one of the most obviously toxic contracts in NBA History.
Lol.
Most disingenuous dude I swear. It’s quite scary.
For the record the only 3 people on planet earth who think Beal’s contact isn’t insanely toxic.
Dmavs
Kblaze
That green chode
No one else. No one. Lmao
[QUOTE=warriorfan;15042191]Imagine playing semantics trying to defend one of the most obviously toxic contracts in NBA History.
Lol.
Most disingenuous dude I swear. It’s quite scary.[/QUOTE]
Imagine being stupid enough to think I'm defending Beal's contract. Good news... you don't have to.
[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;15042193]Imagine being stupid enough to think I'm defending Beal's contract. Good news... you don't have to.[/QUOTE]
You have an iq of sub 80. I literally can’t understand anything you say 75% of the time or more.
If anyone is interested in the truth (that wouldn't be warriorfan) I've said that Beal's contract turned out fine for Washington becaude they managed to get rid of it and get some assets out of it. I have never said that Beal is worth paying the supermax worth a no-trade clause.