05-23-2023, 07:51 PM
(05-23-2023, 03:25 PM)ItsGoTime Wrote: OG and Bridges were both starters for their teams (OG on a playoff team) while Eason is a backup on a worst in the league record team type. That makes it really hard to give him any value other than a #17 pick (if anything, he's lost value). I get why he's off the bench, but it just doesn't make things easier to evaluate when trying to make a comparison or picturing him starting here (I would think he'd have to win that spot depending on who we bring in this offseason).
What would be the extra compensation? Problem is I don't have a good handle on who most of their guys are. They are targeting Harden and a PG when Green is a combo G which gives me a bit of pause as to what the direction is. However, Tate is a defensive stopper for them, Is he too much compensation? Tate and Eason for Bullock and #10?
I'm comparing OG's 3rd year and Mikal's 2nd year to Tari's 1st year, to make things even age wise. If you compare all 3 of their rookie years, Tari is incredibly better. Tari played in all 82 games and started 5 at over 20 mins... as a rookie. Look at Mikal only started 32 games his 2nd year. OG only started 6.
Point taken, but you can't poo-poo the analysis because Tari plays on a terrible team. His competition is the same. IMO you can only diminish scoring when coming from a terrible team, like Keldon Johnson. Also, Eason is playing behind the 3 stud Jrs: Martin, Porter, and Smith.
Again, the tangibles are all there. He greatly outperformed OG and Mikal's rookie years. IMO, he's a younger, cheaper OG (to be).
Houston would be an incredible landing spot for Reaves.
Green, Reaves, Porter, Smith, Sengun with Martin, Tate (and draft picks/FAs)