So let’s spin back to your terminology. Even if there’s no quibble over “trading is a plan,” “we’re going to be able to trade with worse assets because New York” is not a plan. It’s a fantasy. It literally just failed last summer, yet again.

Except he didn’t say that last part, though.

Look, I think we all know the “New York” market advantage is a thing of the past for awhile (and I believe Dolan has played a part in that among other factors). That said, beating the drum of “our assets are undesirable” is either untrue or unproven. Why the gloom? Bc one team was in a better position asset and win-curve wise (as JK47) than us to trade for for a guy most of us felt wouldn’t move the needle enough for what we would’ve had to give up?

Brunson is available tonight…

Good news. Given the state of the team, i think i don’t want to know how the team looks without Brunson. 😛

https://twitter.com/draftdummies/status/1596744506493505536?s=46&t=7E6xRwl3iK0EUv4Cn7DYVg

Huh….

That said, he doesn’t really qualify as a “star” to Leon since Leon by his own accord still “needs” to trade for two more. (And in point of fact, though he’s excellent, he really isn’t a “star” in the “trade for two stars” sense.)

*********************

Right, but hard to see how that doesn’t still “count.” The owner of the “star who demands a trade to New York” might do the same thing.

Is this your supporting evidence? Look at the articles as to why. Looks like Noble has replaced you as my preferred counsel when I sue MSG for negligence