Merged: Who would you give up for Paul George?

If the "compensation" being offered amounts to nothing, it's definitely worth it to keep him, IMO. Especially since they can still check in on offers at the deadline and see if they can get something better then, from teams who are contending and think they're a piece away.

They should definitely trade him if they're offered something worthwhile. They should definitely not trade him if they're not offered anything worthwhile.

 

I guess it just depends on what is considered to be "worthwhile."

I vaguely remember KP being too attached to his players when he was here.

 

Oh? I don't specifically remember him being particularly attached to players, but I may be misremembering. Which players did you think he should have let go/traded that he didn't?

 

You don't remember "let the cake bake?" It was a pretty famous and annoying phrase that was repeated constantly.

 

I remember that, but my recollection was that people disliked that because they wanted high-profile free agents added, while Pritchard was advocating improvement from within. Which players clearly needed to go that Pritchard refused to trade?

 

Not sure “clearly needed to be traded” is a good qualifier.

Players we could have traded to help land a superstar in a consolidation trade might be a better qualifier.

There was a time when Batum was considered untouchable. Many GMs where calling to make a trade for him. There was a rumor that the Blazers where in the running to land CP3 in a trade. But KP refused to make Batum part of the deal, so deal fell through.

 

I remember the raef lafrentz "super" expiring contract trade hype and it never happening meaning a trade.

 

Well, the reason I used that as a qualifier is because if you use "hey, this guy COULD have been traded" as the standard, you could argue every GM is too attached to his players, if you wanted to, by pointing at every tradeable player on that GM's roster that isn't/wasn't traded.

IMO, to create a clear pattern of the type Nate Bishop was suggesting, there should be a few cases of players that really should have been traded in a way that was obvious, but Pritchard refused to pull the trigger.

Anyway, it's not a huge deal. It's entirely possible Pritchard has a tough time dealing his own guys. I was just curious if I was forgetting some obvious examples. But I still think it's not worth trading your best player for scraps a year out. Things can change, whether with George's willingness to stay or with offers later on. Even if the chances are low, scraps aren't worth removing even that possibility.

 

Makes tons of sense for Cleveland. I don't get went indy would want love, personally.

 

3 years while they are rebuilding. If I were them I would rather have our three picks plus a young talent.

 

At first I was like...... nah...... but getting Love is better than getting some shitty picks and cap filler.

 

They'd be three picks but highest would be #15. Love is a certain quality. It's not even like they can get a top 3 pick back for George now, and their young piece to build around is Myles Turner.

 

In a normal draft, these picks would be like having the 7th, 12th, and 18th picks. How is that shitty?

 

I remember it being talked about that PA didn't want to move Lafrentz contract because he wanted to save money since the team was hemorrhaging money at that point and he was debating selling the team.

 

Love has value, but I'd insist on a 3-team trade to get picks/youngins.

 

Nope.

 

Absolutely not.