Than you join free agent stR to ready made young team

Trading multiple young players and picks is a grave mistake

Fans need to be patient

BRIGGS wrote:Save a year where we can have max space

Than you join free agent stR to ready made young team

Trading multiple young players and picks is a grave mistake

Fans need to be patient

Precursor thread for Briggs many draft pick threads. A dream come true for him. Lol

BRIGGS wrote:Save a year where we can have max space

Than you join free agent stR to ready made young team

Trading multiple young players and picks is a grave mistake

Fans need to be patient

I agree. I am tired of people who counts a team's success based on how many "stars" it had on the roster. This all out starfukk is just reset, rinse repeat

RonRon wrote:yes which was what we had before we trade for CA

or

what Philly/Lakers and even Kings right now have

Boston can continue to improve and just about trade for ANYONE with their assets
While TWOLVES changed it around this summer

meloshouldgo wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Save a year where we can have max space

Than you join free agent stR to ready made young team

Trading multiple young players and picks is a grave mistake

Fans need to be patient

I agree. I am tired of people who counts a team's success based on how many "stars" it had on the roster. This all out starfukk is just reset, rinse repeat

That's a valid preference but if we're to cross-reference success with Finals wins/appearances, the evidence for "stars" is overwhelming.

But there is indeed other, different measures of success.

RonRon wrote:yes which was what we had before we trade for CA

No.

Not even close.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Save a year where we can have max space

Than you join free agent stR to ready made young team

Trading multiple young players and picks is a grave mistake

Fans need to be patient

I agree. I am tired of people who counts a team's success based on how many "stars" it had on the roster. This all out starfukk is just reset, rinse repeat

That's a valid preference but if we're to cross-reference success with Finals wins/appearance, the evidence for "stars" is overwhelming.

But there is indeed other, different measures of success.

But who counts as a "star"? I don't read what Briggs is writing and assume that he wouldn't like to have KD or Curry. A lot of people here including me don't think of Irving as a superstar though. I think Briggs is writing more about starphucking than acquiring legit, 2 way versatile superstars.

No build up a team where the last piece(for example maybe a 34 year old Lebron James) see's that we have size shooting defense all in place and we saved a $ spot at a maximum level for him to walk right into as the final piece. Is there a lot of these players--no. And even if they dont come--kind of like Detroit early 2000's you build a team that just jells on its own and gets the final spare parts from FA (while more ancillary) you may need instead of star.

BRIGGS wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Save a year where we can have max space

Than you join free agent stR to ready made young team

Trading multiple young players and picks is a grave mistake

Fans need to be patient

I agree. I am tired of people who counts a team's success based on how many "stars" it had on the roster. This all out starfukk is just reset, rinse repeat

That's a valid preference but if we're to cross-reference success with Finals wins/appearance, the evidence for "stars" is overwhelming.

But there is indeed other, different measures of success.

But who counts as a "star"? I don't read what Briggs is writing and assume that he wouldn't like to have KD or Curry. A lot of people here including me don't think of Irving as a superstar though. I think Briggs is writing more about starphucking than acquiring legit, 2 way versatile superstars.

No build up a team where the last piece(for example maybe a 34 year old Lebron James) see's that we have size shooting defense all in place and we saved a $ spot at a maximum level for him to walk right into as the final piece. Is there a lot of these players--no. And even if they dont come--kind of like Detroit early 2000's you build a team that just jells on its own and gets the final spare parts from FA (while more ancillary) you may need instead of star.

Again, picking the ONE team that achieved success that way is a perfectly valid preference, it just isn't a sound argument.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Save a year where we can have max space

Than you join free agent stR to ready made young team

Trading multiple young players and picks is a grave mistake

Fans need to be patient

I agree. I am tired of people who counts a team's success based on how many "stars" it had on the roster. This all out starfukk is just reset, rinse repeat

That's a valid preference but if we're to cross-reference success with Finals wins/appearance, the evidence for "stars" is overwhelming.

But there is indeed other, different measures of success.

But who counts as a "star"? I don't read what Briggs is writing and assume that he wouldn't like to have KD or Curry. A lot of people here including me don't think of Irving as a superstar though. I think Briggs is writing more about starphucking than acquiring legit, 2 way versatile superstars.

I don't know. I don't believe Briggs mentioned stars. That is a reply to meloshoulgo.

Well same thing. I don't think he's saying he'd turn down KD if KD wanted to sign here. He just didn't add qualifications to his statement. I could be wrong and he doesn't want legit stars either, though.

That seems too subjective to advance as a philosophy. Entirely dependent on who an individual thinks is a "star" and not a star.