bleedspeed177 wrote:you stated Rubio and a 1st.
correct. Ricky stated that those were the two best assets and russell and young were the worst. I would rate the assets
1.Russell
2.Rubio
3. 1st round pick
4. Young
is that wrong?
bleedspeed177 wrote:you stated Rubio and a 1st.
alexftbl8181 wrote:lipoli390 wrote:TeamRicky wrote:You propose trading the best two assets for the worst two assets. Are you David Kahn?
Lol. I was wondering the same thing. No shortage of silly ideas I guess.
How is Rubio or a 1st round pick a higher asset then Russel?
alexftbl8181 wrote:bleedspeed177 wrote:you stated Rubio and a 1st.
correct. Ricky stated that those were the two best assets and russell and young were the worst. I would rate the assets
1.Russell
2.Rubio
3. 1st round pick
4. Young
is that wrong?
alexftbl8181 wrote:bleedspeed177 wrote:you stated Rubio and a 1st.
correct. Ricky stated that those were the two best assets and russell and young were the worst. I would rate the assets
1.Russell
2.Rubio
3. 1st round pick
4. Young
is that wrong?
thedoper wrote:The real issue will stay the same. Wiggins is our best 2 and our best 3. So we need to ask is Bazz a better 3 than Lavine is a 2? I think he is, and that is why I opt to play Wiggins/Bazz at the 2/3 over Lavine/Wiggins. I hope that Lavine and Bazz can get a healthy rivalry for playing time, but for now I think Bazz should have the edge.