(08-12-2023, 10:56 AM)mvossman Wrote: I feel like your first paragraph is evidence for the opposite conclusion. For a team with such a large amount of what ifs, its hard to imagine they are going to be legit title contenders, or that adding another what if (is Capela on the decline?) is going to change that significantly. Even with Kyrie's timeline, you could make a strong argument for seeing how some of these what ifs play out, and then pulling the trigger next offseason when you have 3 picks to potentially trade instead of one.I think the decline question is right up there with will Luka come to camp in shape? line of thinking. Even if Luka comes in out of shape, he’s still going to be great. Even if we get a declined Capela, he’ll still be the absolute best option at starting C for this team and it’s not particularly close. So no, I don’t think there is much evidence for the opposite conclusion.
Another reason to give it a year is that so many of our what ifs are young. Lively, Omax, Hardy, Green and Williams all have various potential to be better the season after next. The goal seems to be building a long term contention window, and the earliest reasonable expectation of that window to start is the 24-25 season.
Giving it a year could stunt our young addition’s playoff growth, which is what Luka and Kyrie (and the rest of the team for that matter) care about. Don’t punt on the play that very well could get us into field goal range to win the game when your team has been on a roll.
Edit: Please explain to me how you came to the conclusion that we will have only 1 pick to trade next year? If we trade 27, next year we will have 2 picks, not 1 (with Capela, what do we NEED that 3 picks will get us that 2 picks won’t?). Getting Capela starts the contention window now and doesn’t interrupt that long term window, it’s all upside.