And neither would be expected to.One is still more talented than the other which is the bottom line.Much better fit next to Lebron and AD and a better POA defender.Its bizarre that people want to keep a less talented player because he makes less money.
Because Murray’s contract is nearly double that of Reaves and Murray is not twice as good. I would take two players of Austin Reaves caliber over one Murray every day and any day.
It's very rare. But that's not an issue for us. We have two of the ten best players in the league (IMO). But our supporting players need upgrading. The Mavs did that at the trade deadline to surround Luka and Kyrie.
Exactly.Boston didn’t sit around either even when they had one of the best teams.They went out and added talent in Porzingas and holiday.yet people want to hold on to inferior talent because they make less money and their my favorite player.It’s unbelievable really
This is BS and insulting the way you simplistically frame it. What is the "total" cost players wise in addition to AR plus picks vs other teams offers for Murray? For IMO a marginal upgrade player wise and debatable all around value wise. This isn't happening in a vacuum AR for Murray obviously. We have other needs as well, especially a real Big Man.
There’s only two contracts you could use with AR,Gabe or Vando neither of them would be a big loss.Yes they need a big or two but they don’t need an upgrade there.I have nothing against AR he’s a good player but if you can upgrade you do it.
And how many picks? It’s pretty much a given there will be first round picks plus other players from competing teams. I could be wrong but I doubt Rob with the budget he has always wants to blow all that on Murray.
We’ve already seen Atlanta’s ask for Murray last deadline and I think it’s too high for us to bite. And I’m a Murray fan. But I’m also an AR fan. It’s going to take AR and another guy on a good contract like Vando plus some picks. To me it’s too much.
Teams that lose trades and give up precious assets for a marginal upgrade while losing depth and picks can’t win either.
This kind of crap: Like yesterday with your cute implying Reaves failed at his role in the FIBA tournament because I brought up what Kerr said about him being the 3rd best player on the Lakers in his 2nd season, even after DLO had a great run until we got to Denver in the WCF, and did all the things that contribute to winning basketball.
How am I as a reasonable person trying to have an intelligent debate supposed to take yesterday, after saying: Then you come back with this: I replied at that point there were multiple "superstars" on that team and you come back with this: And just above these gems: Then explain them! If they're NOT saying what they appear to say and / or you're not "trolling" because some of us don't like giving up all that for Murray and not an upper tier star.
