I just read through the interview I had mentioned previously and there are many good things that I fully embrace that were said by Wright.
In fact, from what I have read of Piper and other Reformed theologians, I think they would agree, not disagree as Wright says they do and would several times.
I now must read Piper's book for myself to see exactly what he says. I seriously doubt Piper would suggest we read Paul as if he were born in the 17th century.
I am starting to quickly get the sense that Wright and Piper, or at least the commentators on this debate are conflating things and there might not be all that much difference at all between the two and in the case where they are disagreeing in their own words, it seems like they might be talking past each other or misunderstanding one another.