I agree....but the part that was amusing was LA says they wont get in a bidding war with the Cs. Have to imagine because they know they'd lose?As much as I'd like to see AD in Celtics Green unless Ainge gets a guarantee that The Unibrow will resign I wouldn't trade Tatum.
How about we look at Minny after Love left (they fell off the map after a 40 win season) to NO minus AD.
LMAO at putting Love and AD in the same sentence....unreal.yet the "broken down player" plays as much as the guy you do want to trade for.
Weird.
And AD has already been cleared to return. Of the two, who has played more games? Here's a hint: your guy has played in FOUR games this far.....FOUR.You could not kick your own ass more if you tried. AD is also hurt. Guess LA wont want him?
I am still waiting for you to quote that post.
Spoiler alert...
You can't because it doesn't exist.
They are.But we are talking about a 3-4 year window and it's not like they'll be attracting a FA with the money they'd save with Siakam. 20-10 guys who hit 3s are rare ya know.
already quoted and gave you the # of the post.I am still waiting for you to quote that post.
Spoiler alert...
You can't because it doesn't exist.
They are.
But, if Kawhi walks, they are much better off with Siakam.
If Kawhi stays, the same can also be true because of his defense....depending on playoff matchups.
In the Finals, Siakam helps you more against the WArriors than Love.
pretty simple. Lance said they'd get 2 firsts for Love. You of course backed him. Even after you claimed they couldn't get any asset of significance for him.
I get it's not in you to admit your logic was off base, so I wont ask you do it.
But nice try with the "da fuq"? If you don't get it, check out the post yourself.
Seriously, this whole argument started because @ChiefsLakers67 said he'd take a oft-injured Davis. But, not a oft-injured Love.LMAO at putting Love and AD in the same sentence....unreal.
Yeah, they Griz rejected it.Has anyone mentioned this yet? Kyle Lowry & Valanciunas for Mike Conley & Mark Gasol. Ran across an article about it.
already quoted and gave you the # of the post.
No need to reply, as I know you'd break the code by admitting a gaffe.
Not sure. Didn't read the article. Just saw the headline.