I guess if you're a lazy GM, but you can easily find a trade for JC.
As opposed to you who just creates a narrative then desperately tries to force everything into that narrative even if it obviously doesnt fit. I remember when "Tay Henny" was the most NBA ready prospect!
Gonna need you to pull a receipt on that one chief.
You constantly talk about "Ainge the bargain hunter, so you have to force the Collins trade into that narrative.
I would love to see that receipt as well.
Getting a starter for Gay seems like a bargain. No need to force a narrative there. Pretty much everyone agrees we got him for a bargain.
A bargain that has led to us being one of the worst teams in the NBA? Does no one remember the Will Hardy press conference before the season and how confused he sounded on how to use Collins? Not exactly excited about the "bargain" he got from Ainge.
Was talking about the Tay Henny thing. The John Collins trade is the reason (plus the mountain of other evidence) I think he’s a bargain hunter. I’m certainly not the one in the argument saying if you want to make a star trade an important step is to have a long term big contract on a veteran… because almost all the evidence suggest when stars get moved teams want expiring contracts, prospects and picks. I’m not forcing a narrative at all. They got Collins because they think he’s undervalued and they can either use him on court or in a trade (but doesn’t have to be a star deal… might be grabbing a pick and an expiring).
Ahh, well it's too much work to go through all the glazing you did over "Tay Henny" in the draft thread.
Is Will Hardy the GM?
Okay so then I guess you just make **** up and pass it off as fact in arguments in completely unrelated matters.
He looked around at what was available and got what he could from Gay so he could have a tradeable contract. If you want to spin it as "bargain hunting" go for it, but the main motivator was having a tradeable contract for a more expensive player.
Its not though. If he wanted a tradeable contract he could have simply ignored Gay's deal and used his $20M or so in cap space to sign someone to a Bruce Brown type of deal which is infinitely more tradeable in a deal like that.
If that’s why we traded for Collins color me confused. If we traded for him as a trade chip down the line, fine, still a little confusing, but I get that.
lmao jesus christ
Nice rebuttal. Its 100% true if you actually pay attention to the history of star trades.
Now you’re not making any sense.
Go ahead and tell me how I don't make sense.
