Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Magooch" data-source="post: 1069259" data-attributes="member: 17987">I mean, I guess that’s fair but at the same time - broadly speaking - if you trade for ANY player and they A.) can’t stay healthy; B.) declines in performance; or C.) doesn’t contribute to team success - isn’t that also a “bad” trade? Parsons might’ve cost more than most but ultimately IMO these sort of pass/fail markers aren’t unique to him or his situation… I mean, really we could evaluate EVERY usage of team resources by the same rubric. What if we didn’t trade for Parsons and kept our picks - if the pick doesn’t pan out, can’t stay healthy, doesn’t help the team as much as they “should” - then that’s a failed pick too, no? Maybe we keep our extra 40m in cap space but the players we choose to invest it in fail by the same measure. I guess we could say the issue is “putting all your eggs in one basket” (but I don’t really think we’re doing that) but at the end of the day whether it’s a trade, draft pick, extension, free agency signing, etc… these markers of success (or lack thereof) are pretty similar big-picture to me</blockquote>

No members online now.

Total: 791 (members: 1, guests: 790)