First, great Dunn had better defensive statistics than Brown at age 22 vs age 19.
William Cheon

On point two, comparing Lavine to Brown based on years in the league, Lavine is about equal to Brown (though Lavine was a year younger).

On point three, the argument has been that Boston wasnt willing to part with Brown for Butler straight up. While there is no evidence of such a trade, the trade that was rejected was apparently the no.3 for Butler straight up. That is equally atrocious. Also comparing per-36 minutes is just one thing. If you compare advanced stats Brown is significantly worse than George and Leonard. For example, Brown had a -4BPM, George had a 0BPM, while Leonard had a positive 4.3. But I have always agreed that Brown is a fine rookie and could be a good NBA player, I have only been arguing that the likelihood of him becoming a player as good as Jimmy Butler or Paul George is unlikely and that holding off on trading him based on a really small and not that great sample size is a bit ridiculous.

On point four, who isnt for drafting good young talent? But you then make the claim that trading young talent for “partial increase in output” is bad. I have never made the argument for simply trading for veterans. Also trading for Butler or George is not “partial increase in output.” They are ALL NBA level players. Top 15 players in the league, Butler btw is on a good contract, and they both are entering their primes. Acting as if that is not of value is nonsense. Trading Brown or Tatum for Butler, is replacing maybe a top 150–200 player, with a top 15 player. It means you can compete and possibly beat the Cavs in a series. Yes, it is slightly more expensive, but what team competing today isnt over the salary cap? Further, this team is meant to win NOW, not in 5 years. Horford, Hayward, and Thomas are all in their primes and will only be on the decline (if not playing) when Brown and Tatum enter theirs. And again the Spurs and GSW are quite different. The Spurs had Tim Duncan in his prime when they started developing ginobili and Parker. It made sense to keep them together and have them develop together, as you already had a superstar on the roster. The same with GSW, they had Curry and Klay who had already shown much more than Brown, Tatum, or the future picks that Boston has. ONe thing I find astonishing is Boston fans willingness to think they already have young superstars on their team, which will allow them to compete for years. They are just as likely to become another orlando magic with young but not great talent, than the next spurs. If Boston had say a Townes on the team, then I wouldnt be trading for Butler, but would be keeping the young talent and hoping they grow into a juggernaut. INstead they had the prospects to create a juggernaut and decided not, simply because 0f an ignorant hope in the future.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.