LeBron James to re-sign with Cavs

[pb-ceo]

dude if I did a survey of every GM in the league I am 100% certain the vast majority would not trade KI for Cp3. the VAST majority. I am not even a cavs fan. But BRON does not win the title without KI.

[improper]

I'm not surprised it's gotten to this though. The all mighty PPG has won the day on RealGM. This sucks because I rooted for the Cavs harder than I ever have for a non Clippers team and was happy as hell for them. But this kind of crap makes it hard to be happy for them if it triggers asinine, knee jerk reactions such as Kyrie Irving>Chris Paul.

It's not about PPG. However, Kyrie is a scorer. His job is to put points up. LeBron plays point guard for the Cavs. Kyrie is effectively a two guard. If this were LeBron's Heat teams, Kyrie would be comparable to Wade in his role. It's not his job to run the offense every possession or make plays for the rest of his team. He does that sometimes, and occasionally plays point guard, but LeBron largely runs the point in Cleveland. Kyrie's job is to run his sets, shoot when he's open, and attack when he gets the ball.

The issue here seems to be that you're trying to compare Kyrie to a pure point guard, and that's just not who or what he is. He's more comparable to Kobe Bryant than Chris Paul.

[OkcSinceSGA]

dude if I did a survey of every GM in the league I am 100% certain the vast majority would not trade KI for Cp3. the VAST majority. I am not even a cavs fan. But BRON does not win the title without KI.

It's hard for me to understand you, because your logic is so flawed.


You:

Premises: Kyrie was a huge part of the Cavs winning the finals.
Conclusion: Kyrie Irving would be deemed more valuable than Chris Paul by the VAST majority of GM's in the league largely based on one series.


Me:

Premises: Here is the data proving why Chris Paul is a far superior basketball player and has been since Kyrie has been in the league.
Conclusion: Chris Paul is clearly the better player based on larger sample size and hard data.



There is no planet on which Kyrie is OBJECTIVELY a better or even MORE VALUABLE player than Chris Paul. This is based on hard data, not opinion. Even offensively Kyrie can't hold a candle to CP3 due to inferior efficiency. Then you factor in that Paul is an ELITE defender and the best playmaker in the game and I'm not sure what there is to discuss here. If your argument is Kyrie being worth more due to age... I have trouble thinking that Paul who literally just turned 31 and has a skill based game is even losing much value wise there, given that Cleveland is in a win now mode and Lebron is older than CP3.

[improper]

The vast majority of the GMs in the league would probably value a 24-year-old star over a 31-year-old star. Is Paul better now? Yes. I think most would agree with that statement. However, Paul has a limited amount of years left in the tank, whereas Kyrie is a few years away from even entering his prime. Youth is valued in the NBA, as it should be. You never know when a guy over thirty is going to meet Father Time and never be the same, whereas you can be relatively confident that a star in his mid-twenties has at least eight years worth of ball left.

[OkcSinceSGA]

The vast majority of the GMs in the league would probably value a 24-year-old star over a 31-year-old star. Is Paul better now? Yes. I think most would agree with that statement. However, Paul has a limited amount of years left in the tank, whereas Kyrie is a few years away from even entering his prime. Youth is valued in the NBA, as it should be. You never know when a guy over thirty is going to meet Father Time and never be the same, whereas you can be relatively confident that a star in his mid-twenties has at least eight years worth of ball left.

Youth is more valued when you're thinking long term. Cavs are thinking short term, win now. Paul just had his best season as a Clipper at 30 years old, so no telling what's left in the tank. Would you trade Lebron for Paul George? Because based on your logic most GM's in the league would surely take PG over Lebron right now. The gap between CP3 and Kyrie is similar both talent and age wise.

Youth value wise trumps similarly talented players. Not when one is an MVP candidate, superstar and one is a mere all star in the inferior conference.

[NyKnicks1714]

The vast majority of the GMs in the league would probably value a 24-year-old star over a 31-year-old star. Is Paul better now? Yes. I think most would agree with that statement. However, Paul has a limited amount of years left in the tank, whereas Kyrie is a few years away from even entering his prime. Youth is valued in the NBA, as it should be. You never know when a guy over thirty is going to meet Father Time and never be the same, whereas you can be relatively confident that a star in his mid-twenties has at least eight years worth of ball left.

Youth is more valued when you're thinking long term. Cavs are thinking short term, win now. Paul just had his best season as a Clipper at 30 years old, so no telling what's left in the tank. Would you trade Lebron for Paul George? Because based on your logic most GM's in the league would surely take PG over Lebron right now. The gap between CP3 and Kyrie is similar both talent and age wise.

Youth value wise trumps similarly talented players. Not when one is an MVP candidate, superstar and one is a mere all star in the inferior conference.

The gap between CP3 and Irving is nowhere near the gap between LeBron and George.

[OkcSinceSGA]

The vast majority of the GMs in the league would probably value a 24-year-old star over a 31-year-old star. Is Paul better now? Yes. I think most would agree with that statement. However, Paul has a limited amount of years left in the tank, whereas Kyrie is a few years away from even entering his prime. Youth is valued in the NBA, as it should be. You never know when a guy over thirty is going to meet Father Time and never be the same, whereas you can be relatively confident that a star in his mid-twenties has at least eight years worth of ball left.

Youth is more valued when you're thinking long term. Cavs are thinking short term, win now. Paul just had his best season as a Clipper at 30 years old, so no telling what's left in the tank. Would you trade Lebron for Paul George? Because based on your logic most GM's in the league would surely take PG over Lebron right now. The gap between CP3 and Kyrie is similar both talent and age wise.

Youth value wise trumps similarly talented players. Not when one is an MVP candidate, superstar and one is a mere all star in the inferior conference.

The gap between CP3 and Irving is nowhere near the gap between LeBron and George.

Yes, it is. Lebron is at .240 WS/48, George at .160. Paul is at .253, Kyrie at .157. That's just based on one of the better metrics too, Once you add in RAPM, TS, ORTG etc.. the gap grows. Not sure how well you know WS/48 but that's a massive gap to be a full .100 better than another player. Just using very broad, vague terms .100 is a league average player. .150 ish is a really good role player or lower tier all star. Around .200 you get into legit superstar, MVP tier and .250-.300 ish you're in prime Lebron, Duncan, CP3, Jordan God tier.

[NO-KG-AI]

Huge Chris Paul fan here. The Cavaliers just won with Kyrie. He's younger, and probably a better fit with LeBron, even if he's not as good a player. Don't tinker with that. There's no reason to willingly get older in this situation. Kyrie's best days are still ahead of him.

[OkcSinceSGA]

Huge Chris Paul fan here. The Cavaliers just won with Kyrie. He's younger, and probably a better fit with LeBron, even if he's not as good a player. Don't tinker with that. There's no reason to willingly get older in this situation. Kyrie's best days are still ahead of him.

And that's okay. I am not saying that the Cavs should shake things up. I'm more responding to anyone arguing that most teams would take Kyrie over Paul (even factoring in age), or that Kyrie is a better player. That being said.. fit, chemistry matter and I would never trade a star player for another star right after winning a title. One thing I already gave people pro Kyrie is that fit wise he's much less ball dominant than CP3, so probably will get in Lebron's way a bit less.

[improper]

The vast majority of the GMs in the league would probably value a 24-year-old star over a 31-year-old star. Is Paul better now? Yes. I think most would agree with that statement. However, Paul has a limited amount of years left in the tank, whereas Kyrie is a few years away from even entering his prime. Youth is valued in the NBA, as it should be. You never know when a guy over thirty is going to meet Father Time and never be the same, whereas you can be relatively confident that a star in his mid-twenties has at least eight years worth of ball left.

Youth is more valued when you're thinking long term. Cavs are thinking short term, win now. Paul just had his best season as a Clipper at 30 years old, so no telling what's left in the tank. Would you trade Lebron for Paul George? Because based on your logic most GM's in the league would surely take PG over Lebron right now. The gap between CP3 and Kyrie is similar both talent and age wise.

Youth value wise trumps similarly talented players. Not when one is an MVP candidate, superstar and one is a mere all star in the inferior conference.

Uh...the Cavs just won the title with Kyrie as the second best player not just on their team, but in the series. That short term enough for you?

[NyKnicks1714]

Youth is more valued when you're thinking long term. Cavs are thinking short term, win now. Paul just had his best season as a Clipper at 30 years old, so no telling what's left in the tank. Would you trade Lebron for Paul George? Because based on your logic most GM's in the league would surely take PG over Lebron right now. The gap between CP3 and Kyrie is similar both talent and age wise.

Youth value wise trumps similarly talented players. Not when one is an MVP candidate, superstar and one is a mere all star in the inferior conference.

The gap between CP3 and Irving is nowhere near the gap between LeBron and George.

Yes, it is. Lebron is at .240 WS/48, George at .160. Paul is at .253, Kyrie at .157. That's just based on one of the better metrics too, Once you add in RAPM, TS, ORTG etc.. the gap grows. Not sure how well you know WS/48 but that's a massive gap to be a full .100 better than another player. Just using very broad, vague terms .100 is a league average player. .150 ish is a really good role player or lower tier all star. Around .200 you get into legit superstar, MVP tier and .250-.300 ish you're in prime Lebron, Duncan, CP3, Jordan God tier.

So based on that, Chris Paul and LeBron are pretty much on the same level according to you?

[FirstInkTDot]

But.. But.. Stephen A said he'll wear the purple and gold.

[OsuCavsfan103]

Man LeBron really has grown up. Nipped all that "LeBron to leave?" crap in the bud real fast.... the younger more immature LeBron would have grinned and kinda let the story go wild.

On another note, just another blatant example of the so called experts at ESPN knowing nothing and simply trying their best to belittle CLE. I don't see why anyone would actually think LBJ would have left this off-season.

[nbafan38]

This is really a non story and I don;'t think he was ever going to leave Cleveland this offseason, who leaves a team with a chance to repeat. And after winning one for theland why would he want tomiss opening night in Cleveland next year tocelebrate the title, that wiuld be odd. Now he may leave Cleveland again at somepoint but not within a month of delivering them their first championship. Some3 people at espn just liketo create drama and I'mglad Lebron has matured and kind of shut down the dramaright away rather tahn runwith it.

[jeeph]

The gap between CP3 and Irving is nowhere near the gap between LeBron and George.

Yes, it is. Lebron is at .240 WS/48, George at .160. Paul is at .253, Kyrie at .157. That's just based on one of the better metrics too, Once you add in RAPM, TS, ORTG etc.. the gap grows. Not sure how well you know WS/48 but that's a massive gap to be a full .100 better than another player. Just using very broad, vague terms .100 is a league average player. .150 ish is a really good role player or lower tier all star. Around .200 you get into legit superstar, MVP tier and .250-.300 ish you're in prime Lebron, Duncan, CP3, Jordan God tier.

So based on that, Chris Paul and LeBron are pretty much on the same level according to you?

According to his stats/thinking, he probably thinks Paul is better than LeBron. jk, sort of. What he doesn't see is fit and long term planning.

As far as fit... Paul is best when it is his team. Ask him to play off the ball and his numbers take a nose dive. If that happened then according to RealGM logic he would only be worth a couple of role players and a pick. Kyrie is better off the ball with LeBron than Paul. Kyrie is a better shooter and better at taking advantage of switching mismatches getting to the rim. Paul is not what I would call a slasher or spot up shooter, although he could do that more than competently, it would waste his best talents.

Paul playing with LeBron would be dependent on using LeBron as an off the ball player, because Paul's best attribute is making teammates better. Playing with Kyrie, LeBron can take plays off, letting Kyrie iso or pnr and carry the offensive load by only playing up to 2 man ball. Giving LeBron a rest without going to the bench.

And then you talk about Blake vs. TT in terms of player difference. But never consider the fit. There is only one ball. I would not take the ball out of Lebron's or Kyrie's hands to give it to Blake. So Blake would cast into the Deandre Jordan role sometimes and the Love role sometimes with the Cavs. TT is defintely better than Blake at the Jordan role. And we have Love who is the better stretch big. Blake is a face up PF, but the Cavs have LeBron who is much better at that role, making Blake redundant, and quite honestly a bench player for portions of the game when Lebron would play the 4. So you can argue about how Blake has a better win share. But I think it is clear TT makes the Cavs a better team than Blake would. Even though Blake is the better player.

I think you look at players in a vacuum too much. Just because someone isn't the best player doesn't mean he's not going to better for a certain team.

But the biggest factor is the long term thinking. In three or five years when LeBron and Paul are going to be on the wrong side of their prime, Kyrie and Love will be in their prime. Allowing LeBron to take on do everything to help the team, but don't have to carry the load role. Kyrie can be the AI/Kobe type of guy that can try and put up 40 every night. While LeBron tries for the triple double. Kyrie is a much better player than Curry was at the same age, to assume he won't get better in his prime is just wrong. The vast majority of players do. If Kyrie and Love do get better in their primes, the Cavs could compete for titles for the next 6 or 7 years. So Lebron has set himself up to compete for titles even if he is no longer the best player on the team. Replace Kyrie with an aging Paul and you have two players looking for someone to carry the load so they can just do what they do of making people better.

Right now I think the consensus is Paul is the better player right now. But I believe the consensus right now, after Kyrie has outplayed every PG he has went against the past two playoffs in his role of mostly SG/sometimes scoring PG, is that he fits better with LeBron. And in three years I would think it will be the consensus that Kyrie is better than Paul.

[OkcSinceSGA]

Yes, it is. Lebron is at .240 WS/48, George at .160. Paul is at .253, Kyrie at .157. That's just based on one of the better metrics too, Once you add in RAPM, TS, ORTG etc.. the gap grows. Not sure how well you know WS/48 but that's a massive gap to be a full .100 better than another player. Just using very broad, vague terms .100 is a league average player. .150 ish is a really good role player or lower tier all star. Around .200 you get into legit superstar, MVP tier and .250-.300 ish you're in prime Lebron, Duncan, CP3, Jordan God tier.

So based on that, Chris Paul and LeBron are pretty much on the same level according to you?

According to his stats/thinking, he probably thinks Paul is better than LeBron. jk, sort of. What he doesn't see is fit and long term planning.

As far as fit... Paul is best when it is his team. Ask him to play off the ball and his numbers take a nose dive. If that happened then according to RealGM logic he would only be worth a couple of role players and a pick. Kyrie is better off the ball with LeBron than Paul. Kyrie is a better shooter and better at taking advantage of switching mismatches getting to the rim. Paul is not what I would call a slasher or spot up shooter, although he could do that more than competently, it would waste his best talents.

Paul playing with LeBron would be dependent on using LeBron as an off the ball player, because Paul's best attribute is making teammates better. Playing with Kyrie, LeBron can take plays off, letting Kyrie iso or pnr and carry the offensive load by only playing up to 2 man ball. Giving LeBron a rest without going to the bench.

And then you talk about Blake vs. TT in terms of player difference. But never consider the fit. There is only one ball. I would not take the ball out of Lebron's or Kyrie's hands to give it to Blake. So Blake would cast into the Deandre Jordan role sometimes and the Love role sometimes with the Cavs. TT is defintely better than Blake at the Jordan role. And we have Love who is the better stretch big. Blake is a face up PF, but the Cavs have LeBron who is much better at that role, making Blake redundant, and quite honestly a bench player for portions of the game when Lebron would play the 4. So you can argue about how Blake has a better win share. But I think it is clear TT makes the Cavs a better team than Blake would. Even though Blake is the better player.

I think you look at players in a vacuum too much. Just because someone isn't the best player doesn't mean he's not going to better for a certain team.

But the biggest factor is the long term thinking. In three or five years when LeBron and Paul are going to be on the wrong side of their prime, Kyrie and Love will be in their prime. Allowing LeBron to take on do everything to help the team, but don't have to carry the load role. Kyrie can be the AI/Kobe type of guy that can try and put up 40 every night. While LeBron tries for the triple double. Kyrie is a much better player than Curry was at the same age, to assume he won't get better in his prime is just wrong. The vast majority of players do. If Kyrie and Love do get better in their primes, the Cavs could compete for titles for the next 6 or 7 years. So Lebron has set himself up to compete for titles even if he is no longer the best player on the team. Replace Kyrie with an aging Paul and you have two players looking for someone to carry the load so they can just do what they do of making people better.

Right now I think the consensus is Paul is the better player right now. But I believe the consensus right now, after Kyrie has outplayed every PG he has went against the past two playoffs in his role of mostly SG/sometimes scoring PG, is that he fits better with LeBron. And in three years I would think it will be the consensus that Kyrie is better than Paul.

Wow, a strawman if I've ever seen one. I thought the other guys posting this crap were bad logically, but you take the cake. I'll try to simplify this for you.

1. I admitted from the jump that fit/chemistry matters and that given the Cavs just won the title I wouldn't make any trades or risk undoing that chemistry. I also admitted that CP3 is more ball dominant than Kyrie and meshing with Lebron OFFENSIVELY wouldn't be as easy. But at the end of the day CP3 would still be a better player, with or without Lebron. He would be FAR superior running an actual offense for Lebron such as PnR etc. The offense even now is very much an iso heavy offense of taking turns shooting, so not like it's fluid. You said you don't want the ball out of Lebron's hands, but you actually do if your PG is CP3 who is historically efficient with his A/TO ratio and playmaking. Not entirely, but both would have to sacrifice a bit like him and Wade did year 1 in Miami. Even IF the offensive FLOW or scoring doesn't improve, the defense+playmaking+turnovers get a HUGE boost. So I can easily see WHY Cavs won't rush to shake up core, that doesn't mean CP3 isn't better or that any team right now wouldn't take CP3 over Kyrie (because I'm willing to be most would).

2. Kyrie's had 5 years to develop and he's shown ZERO tangible, quantifiable improvement (Things like maturity are nice but don't equal production). He's had 3 near identical seasons to start his career (like seriously cloned statistics essentially), one decent improvement last year, then this year a regression back to first 3 years numbers. In other words he's maintained a very steady baseline and hasn't made any "leaps" most stars make well before their 6th season. I'd never say a player CAN'T improve, nor did I in previous posts. But rather that it's an assumption that based on a huge finals series he's going to improve a bunch when he hasn't in 5 years. The odds of CP3 randomly falling off a cliff in 3 or 4 years are actually lower than Kyrie making a big leap based on what we've seen so far from both players. PS... It's not hard to outplay the likes of Lowry who was an all star in the east. The top 3 PG's in the game by far are in the west. Yes he just outplayed Curry and I'm proud of him for stepping up, but it's not something I'd count on long term.

3. Blake vs Thompson was something you misread. I was referring to the talent gap between CP3 and Kyrie. It's similar to Blake+Thompson. It was nothing more than an example. I wasn't saying Blake fits with the Cavs, because obviously him and Lebron would be very redundant considering Blake is a poor man's Lebron practically.


If you're going to call anyone out, please read posts prior and please don't resort to weak strawman's that can easily be put to rest.