Bio not provided
@DannyNowell You were weighing the risk/reward factors. I think the risk of keeping him and possibly losing him for nothing, thus throwing us into a cash-strapped, 2 year spiral isn't really that much worse than the risk of trading him for a mediocre team who is also cash strapped, and now isn't able to build via the draft. I haven't seen anything even being rumored to being offered that would say otherwise (meaning not cash strapped and/or mediocre). Bynum is nice, and dumping Turk's deal is ok, but it will be gone in 2 years anyway. So if we lose Dwight for nothing, Turk will be gone in 2 years along with everyone not named Richardson or Davis, and both of them can be stretched. That is literally blowing it up and starting from scratch. Plus, our teams would be so bad w/o Howard, that the reward is high draft picks. With Bynum, we're at the bottom of the lottery, maybe even a fringe playoff team.
The risk imo, is well worth the reward of keeping him, which is one of the best rewards you can possibly have in the NBA. If you trade him, you obviously don't have that reward any more. And now your new reward is what, Andrew Bynum? Gimmie the dynamite.
3 years, 1 month ago on Keeping Dwight Howard around
The problem with trading him is - and its the same argument you used for not trading him - it is still Otis Smith who would be getting the deal. I don't trust Otis at all. And the worst part is unless those players we get back are on expiring deals, we will be in cash-strapped mediocrity for a while. That's not good. I'd rather be bad w/o Dwight for 2 years, have Otis fired, and rebuild through the draft and with all the cap space we WILL have in a couple years, via free agency. That and the fact that the season is still quite young, and we are playing fairly well, are the reasons they need to keep Dwight til the end.