TMC wrote:No, really. KG's been really durable his whole career. I don't see a reason for him to slow down in the near future. Although you never know... But, if Murph goes down, we'd have Diogu. If KG goes down, we'd also have Diogu. Where's the problem?
The problem is that we traded two key role players (namely, Fisher) away in the deal, so if KG goes down, who picks up the slack? Usually, if Murphy goes down during the year, Fisher or Dunleavy are the ones who pick up the slack (even though Diogu gets more minutes). It's not who replaces the players' minutes; it's who replaces their production. Right now, our lineup's main guns go in this order: Richardson, Davis, Murphy, Fisher, Dunleavy. If Murphy goes down, we still have our 4th option (Fisher) to pick it up. however, if we trade our 3, 4, and 5th options away, if KG or one of our backcourt members go down, we have to rely on our 6th or 7th current options to make due. That's where the problem lies. We lose reliablility in Fisher and Murphy, along with Dunleavy's monthly riot in exchange for one player (albiet, the best player in the league, possibly... but still, he's only one man).
TMC wrote:Usually, the winner in most trades is the team that gets the best player, not the one that gets more players.
I completely agree. But that only applies if the trade keeps most of the system intact. When McGrady was traded to Houston, it was for Francis and Mobley. That's fine. They still had Yao. They still had David Wesley and Bob Sura. They were good. Therefore, McGrady could come in and take Francis' place in the system. If we tried the above trade with KG, we'd have 3 stars and a roster full of unproven role players that are (for the most part) hot-or-cold and therefore unreliable. Diogu, Ellis, Biedrins, and Pietrus all need to get a lot more consistent before I'm comfortable trading away their predecesors.