fightinfunbags
Well-Known Member
I think that’s a lot of money to be paying a guy who has had one good season and has had some mystery around his story with a lengthy unexplained absence followed by a drop in his play quality.Wiggins isnt a negative asset. Not a huge positive but certainly not a negative. A wing that will play decent D and score in the 12-15 range.
And his contract now is only 3 years and $75M and it expires when he is 31 so it is not like his skills will decline much during those 3 years. That is appropriate for a decent wing.
A good example of how a near max contract signed today will start to look like a more reasonable deal a couple years from now.
That’s definitely a negative asset. The Warriors have been considering trading him now for the last 18 months and nobody seems interested at all. I think it’s well established that it’s a piss poor asset. Maybe I over stepped in claiming “negative”. Maybe it’s just a nasty room clearing rancid fart and not full fledged diarrhea yet. However, when you smell that Wiggins gas you know a bowel movement is quickly approaching.