I don't think MU likes to be obvious with his motives. His catch phrase of 'I don't want to be stuck in no man's land' has struck a cord for a lot of the tank/anti-tank debate because what does that phrase really mean?
To a tanker it means blowing it up.. but to an anti-tanker it probably means getting flexibility and assets to help strengthen the core to get to the next level (aka Indiana type build).
The crux is that Lowry apparently was a go to NY but Dolan nixed it. So why would MU want to trade their best PG for a really late first round pick if he didn't want to tank? At this point they have rattled off a few wins but I don't think MU looks at the last 4-5 games and has suddenly changed course.
The fact is that Lowry may not come back. If they extend him he'd have to go for a 3 year contract instead of 4 with his salary arguably being higher. So would it be wise to see an asset walk away? If he waits until the deadline then they may rattle enough wins that those losses that start piling up could get them in no man's land (ie, just out of the playoffs with a weak lottery pick).
So if he trades Lowry sooner than later I don't think it creates a conundrum. Because he's into asset management. And getting an asset for a player that might not come back is a wise move tank or no-tank.
If the team some how plays well without Lowry well what can you do? MU at that point I'm sure will keep the core in tact (better to keep then to trade for pennies on the dollar) and if they make the playoffs will work with whatever he has in the draft. But personally I would be surprised if Lowry is still with Toronto by the deadline.
To a tanker it means blowing it up.. but to an anti-tanker it probably means getting flexibility and assets to help strengthen the core to get to the next level (aka Indiana type build).
The crux is that Lowry apparently was a go to NY but Dolan nixed it. So why would MU want to trade their best PG for a really late first round pick if he didn't want to tank? At this point they have rattled off a few wins but I don't think MU looks at the last 4-5 games and has suddenly changed course.
The fact is that Lowry may not come back. If they extend him he'd have to go for a 3 year contract instead of 4 with his salary arguably being higher. So would it be wise to see an asset walk away? If he waits until the deadline then they may rattle enough wins that those losses that start piling up could get them in no man's land (ie, just out of the playoffs with a weak lottery pick).
So if he trades Lowry sooner than later I don't think it creates a conundrum. Because he's into asset management. And getting an asset for a player that might not come back is a wise move tank or no-tank.
If the team some how plays well without Lowry well what can you do? MU at that point I'm sure will keep the core in tact (better to keep then to trade for pennies on the dollar) and if they make the playoffs will work with whatever he has in the draft. But personally I would be surprised if Lowry is still with Toronto by the deadline.
Comment