Originally Posted by
Pelicanidae
Yeah you're right about CP3's contract, although it still doesn't horrify me as much as it seems to horrify you. Yes, it's an egregiously disgusting contract, we all know that. But it wouldn't interfere with extending Ingram, since we have his bird rights, and by the time Zion/Hayes come up for extension, he's off the books. His contract wouldn't interfere with the upcoming FA class, because that class is garbage anyway, and with the addition of another draftee this Summer, we'll have yet another promising young player under a cost controlled contract.
It's all functional within the confines of the cap. The only reason you'd have to be specifically concerned about CP3's money is if you think it would stop us from signing/trading for someone else, because I doubt that you're particularly concerned about Gayle's bank account in general. Perhaps you would just rather hang on to the flexibility that comes with a smaller deal, sure, and I can't argue with that but frankly that's a prioritisation issue rather than someone being factually wrong.
I find it pretty odd that you're acting as if moving Lonzo is a cost rather than a benefit.
You keep saying "you'd have to lose Jrue AND Lonzo!!!"
Like yes, losing Lonzo is a good thing. That's a benefit for us. He is bad.
Edit: and I will add, that's not me defending the trade overall. Obviously you can (and you in particular probably would) still take a big issue with it, that's fine. Just not really understanding the thought there. ''Oh no! They want Lonzo?!'' Like yes, please, get rid of him, thank you.