Fine, fine we've gone over this. Dwight Howard for a one-year rental which causes us to trade our talent is just silly..right?
Well, things are a bit different now. Our best player, Stephen Curry, has suffered the 3rd ankle injury of the season. 7 games into the season...
As the Oakland Tribune reports, Dwight Howard's name has been tossed around (again). Except now, co-owner Joe Lacob is willing to the make the trade without a long-term extension.
Jump for some quick thoughts.
Ok here's the way I look at it -
- Stephen Curry is by far one of our best players and part of our "young" core.
- BUT, Dwight Howard is Dwight Howard and if you have the opportunity to get him here...you gotta do it.
- ESPECIALLY because Curry's ankle won't be getting better for a loooong time.
- Add in the possibility of not having our lottery pick (knowing our luck)
- Add in Dwight has said ON RECORD that he wants to play with Monta Ellis
- Combine that with Coach Jackson's desire to have a team that actually plays defense
- And trading for Dwight right now for a one-year rental and POTENTIALLY enticing him to stay longer doesn't sound so silly.
What are your thoughts? Should we get Dwight for a 1 year rental?