Not even close, lol. Grant’s a risk because his contract is a massive overpay and he presents the “Wiggins Warriors” risk where you’ll need to be relying on the belief that he’s just not locked in with his current team but he WOULD on your’s. Those two factors bring his price wayyyy lower than this proposed package.
Active_Page_3886
No. I’d give OMax *or* a 1st, not OMax *and* a 1st.
top_of_the_table
Good joke. This trade is on the same level of the Lakers one in the article: Delusional. No way we are giving that much for a bad contract, no way Lakers get Caruso and DeRozan for Rui and their disappointing rookie. And how does Grant make a Big 3? This term is used way too often.
Moe4ver
On one hand no, because he doesn’t rebound good enough and his one on one defense is not what it used to be. We will also be stuck with that contract for 4 more.
On the other hand, maybe a yes. Mainly because I don’t think we get better than that with the asset we send out.
4 Comments
Not even close, lol. Grant’s a risk because his contract is a massive overpay and he presents the “Wiggins Warriors” risk where you’ll need to be relying on the belief that he’s just not locked in with his current team but he WOULD on your’s. Those two factors bring his price wayyyy lower than this proposed package.
No. I’d give OMax *or* a 1st, not OMax *and* a 1st.
Good joke. This trade is on the same level of the Lakers one in the article: Delusional.
No way we are giving that much for a bad contract, no way Lakers get Caruso and DeRozan for Rui and their disappointing rookie.
And how does Grant make a Big 3? This term is used way too often.
On one hand no, because he doesn’t rebound good enough and his one on one defense is not what it used to be. We will also be stuck with that contract for 4 more.
On the other hand, maybe a yes. Mainly because I don’t think we get better than that with the asset we send out.