|
|
Post by gilp5 on Apr 26, 2019 10:06:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by nuraman00 on Apr 26, 2019 10:11:07 GMT -8
Maybe.
Anyways, the Clippers have a lot of different options now, so no need ot rush into anything at the deadline.
They can sign Irving outright, without giving up anything.
And they wouldn't have gotten Shamrock had they done the Boston deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by dyce on Apr 26, 2019 11:26:01 GMT -8
Not sure why we would give up assets for a 3-month rental. If we like Irving we can go after him in the off-season.
|
|
|
|
Post by mistwell on Apr 26, 2019 11:59:07 GMT -8
Not sure why we would give up assets for a 3-month rental. If we like Irving we can go after him in the off-season. Because Gallinari is only an asset if we intend to move him later for something valuable, or re-sign him. If the intent is to use him to acquire one of the two stars we're going for, then that's why we'd give him up now. |
|
|
|
Post by clippers1121 on Apr 26, 2019 14:32:06 GMT -8
We would not trade for Irving unless we knew in advance he was signing with us as a free agent anyway. Otherwise we would just have waited. Boston must not have wanted Harris. They probably figured they already had Hayward and Tatum so why get another forward. Whatever. I like the Sixers deal better anyway. Zubac, Shamet, the draft picks was a real good haul for an expiring deal we were not going to renew anyway.
|
|
