Kyrie Irving, Spurs Have Mutual Interest

[RealGM Wiretap]

The San Antonio Spurs would be a viable trade partner for the Cleveland Cavaliers on Kyrie Irving if LeBron James was committed to the franchise long-term.

The Spurs have interest in Irving while he would be willing to commit to signing with the franchise long-term.

San Antonio could put together a package for Irving with some combination of LaMarcus Aldridge, Tony Parker and Danny Green that gives the Cavaliers a win-now roster.

The Cavaliers, however, are focused on acquiring a young star as part of their trade package for Irving.

Via Adrian Wojnarowski/ESPN

[JohnPferdelack]

Cavs are dreaming of signing a long-term contract by Lebron...

[MotownMadness]

Not really news or anything

[the_process]

Unless there is a team out there that would give up a good prospect and a pick for LMA... which seems very far fetched at this point... the Spurs have nothing to give for Kyrie except Kawhi, and obviously they aren't going to do something that stupid.

[dice]

frankly, I'm not sure why the spurs do that. hail mary attempt to try to close the gap on the warriors? very unlike them. they should promote patty mills to starter and bring parker off the bench to hopefully rejuvenate his game in the last year of his contract. that's at least somewhere close to as good at the PG position as bringing in kyrie to start. why deplete other positions to bring in kyrie, who's not a spurs kind of player to begin with?

[Patsfan1081]

Unless there is a team out there that would give up a good prospect and a pick for LMA... which seems very far fetched at this point... the Spurs have nothing to give for Kyrie except Kawhi, and obviously they aren't going to do something that stupid.

Yeah big difference with the rumors containg Porzingis or a Tatum return, I don't think the media has any clue what type of return Irving would fetch.

[Bobalob]

frankly, I'm not sure why the spurs do that. hail mary attempt to try to close the gap on the warriors? very unlike them. they should promote patty mills to starter and bring parker off the bench to hopefully rejuvenate his game in the last year of his contract. that's at least somewhere close to as good at the PG position as bringing in kyrie to start. why deplete other positions to bring in kyrie, who's not a spurs kind of player to begin with?

Wait, what!?

First off the article is bulls***. But you wouldn't trade an injured and old TP, an irrelevant Danny Green, and a soft (and only 1 year left and no chance in hell resigning) Lamarcus Aldridge for Kyrie?

[Hoopzilla]

Say what you want, but Lebron is the hold up now. If he told Cleveland management what he plans to do with his future, they would pull the trigger on a deal that made the most sense according the those plans. He already left them high and dry once, any person with a spine wouldn't do that twice to his own hometown team. Especially when he stormed back and mortgaged their future so he can cherry pick titles... and only got one. If he told management what he is going to do, he can give the city a parting gift of a hope for the future. Otherwise, they will be pathetic and lottery bound for the forseeable future... again. I highly doubt they will win so many #1 picks this time so the future won't be bright for years.

Alternatively, he could waive his no-trade clause and let them get some assets for the future since they probably won't be seriously contending for a title this year anyways, but I guess that would make sense. He mortgaged their future for his own selfish gain, the least he can do is give them something back when he leaves them high and dry. He didn't win a title for Cleveland, he won it for himself. He tore the team apart, destroyed the salary cap and is now chasing players out of town. I don't call that a person who does what is best for the team or the city, it is all about him.

[dice]

frankly, I'm not sure why the spurs do that. hail mary attempt to try to close the gap on the warriors? very unlike them. they should promote patty mills to starter and bring parker off the bench to hopefully rejuvenate his game in the last year of his contract. that's at least somewhere close to as good at the PG position as bringing in kyrie to start. why deplete other positions to bring in kyrie, who's not a spurs kind of player to begin with?

Wait, what!?

First off the article is bulls***. But you wouldn't trade an injured and old TP, an irrelevant Danny Green, and a soft (and only 1 year left and no chance in hell resigning) Lamarcus Aldridge for Kyrie?

what you're failing to understand is that no team should WANT to resign kyrie irving for max money (which he will surely get). he will be a liability at that price. so it comes down to what you're going to get for the next 2 seasons vs what you're sending out

defense matters. passing matters. rebounding matters. kyrie provides none of that. and he doesn't score at elite efficiency to somewhat make up for all his deficiencies. we've been over this

p.s.: if danny green was irrelevant he wouldn't have gotten the money he did. from one of the best GMs the league has ever seen

[dice]

Say what you want, but Lebron is the hold up now. If he told Cleveland management what he plans to do with his future, they would pull the trigger on a deal that made the most sense according the those plans. He already left them high and dry once, any person with a spine wouldn't do that twice to his own hometown team. Especially when he stormed back and mortgaged their future so he can cherry pick titles... and only got one. If he told management what he is going to do, he can give the city a parting gift of a hope for the future. Otherwise, they will be pathetic and lottery bound for the forseeable future... again. I highly doubt they will win so many #1 picks this time so the future won't be bright for years.

Alternatively, he could waive his no-trade clause and let them get some assets for the future since they probably won't be seriously contending for a title this year anyways, but I guess that would make sense. He mortgaged their future for his own selfish gain, the least he can do is give them something back when he leaves them high and dry. He didn't win a title for Cleveland, he won it for himself. He tore the team apart, destroyed the salary cap and is now chasing players out of town. I don't call that a person who does what is best for the team or the city, it is all about him.

"the decision" was an awful one. but no cavs fan will have ANY room to complain about LeBron era II if he leaves after next season

[tocooks101]

frankly, I'm not sure why the spurs do that. hail mary attempt to try to close the gap on the warriors? very unlike them. they should promote patty mills to starter and bring parker off the bench to hopefully rejuvenate his game in the last year of his contract. that's at least somewhere close to as good at the PG position as bringing in kyrie to start. why deplete other positions to bring in kyrie, who's not a spurs kind of player to begin with?

Wait, what!?

First off the article is bulls***. But you wouldn't trade an injured and old TP, an irrelevant Danny Green, and a soft (and only 1 year left and no chance in hell resigning) Lamarcus Aldridge for Kyrie?

what you're failing to understand is that no team should WANT to resign kyrie irving for max money (which he will surely get). he will be a liability at that price. so it comes down to what you're going to get for the next 2 seasons vs what you're sending out

defense matters. passing matters. rebounding matters. kyrie provides none of that. and he doesn't score at elite efficiency to somewhat make up for all his deficiencies. we've been over this

p.s.: if danny green was irrelevant he wouldn't have gotten the money he did. from one of the best GMs the league has ever seen

I agree about Danny Green, he does have some value, but him and Aldridge is a LITTLE light for an asset like Kyrie.

That said, if you don't think NBA GM's would line up to pay Kyrie the max without having to give up assets, you simply don't understand the economics of the NBA.

[HotelVitale]

Say what you want, but Lebron is the hold up now. If he told Cleveland management what he plans to do with his future, they would pull the trigger on a deal that made the most sense according the those plans.

Might be getting a little obsessive about LBJ there. It seems clear that the hold up is that Irving is young, really good, and signed for a while, and no one's offered a fair return for him that works for the Cavs. The Cavs are under no obligation to trade him, and Irving has no real leverage to force a trade now or before training camp or even the season (unless he wants to play poorly on purpose, which would be pretty sad and which he hasn't said he's going to do); if you were the Cavs you'd be biding your time too and trying to get the best offer, or at least one you could live with. Uncertainty about the Lebron situation doesn't make this easier but it seems like the Cavs want a young player with big star potential whether or not Lebron leaves, and they haven't been offered one.

[dice]

Wait, what!?

First off the article is bulls***. But you wouldn't trade an injured and old TP, an irrelevant Danny Green, and a soft (and only 1 year left and no chance in hell resigning) Lamarcus Aldridge for Kyrie?

what you're failing to understand is that no team should WANT to resign kyrie irving for max money (which he will surely get). he will be a liability at that price. so it comes down to what you're going to get for the next 2 seasons vs what you're sending out

defense matters. passing matters. rebounding matters. kyrie provides none of that. and he doesn't score at elite efficiency to somewhat make up for all his deficiencies. we've been over this

p.s.: if danny green was irrelevant he wouldn't have gotten the money he did. from one of the best GMs the league has ever seen

I agree about Danny Green, he does have some value, but him and Aldridge is a LITTLE light for an asset like Kyrie.

That said, if you don't think NBA GM's would line up to pay Kyrie the max without having to give up assets, you simply don't understand the economics of the NBA.

in no business on the face of the earth is it a good idea to pay way more than something is worth. paying 30% of your cap for kyrie irving is like paying for a high priced meal and getting a great burger, no sides and no drink

teams will do it. but they won't like the return on their investment. give him an average supporting cast and he'll give you years of missing the playoffs. poor man's (prime) melo. and teams were lined up to pay melo the max as well. but I guess I've got a lot to learn from james dolan and phil Jackson when it comes to nba economics

ESPN's xRAPM wins contributed last season:

20.4 lebron
15.5 kawhi (a real max player)

8.9 melo (2013-2014, age 29, one of his best seasons, downhill from there)
8.2 kyrie
5.8 Aldridge
4.9 mills (in only 22 mpg)
4.8 green (27 mpg)
1.4 parker

[tocooks101]

what you're failing to understand is that no team should WANT to resign kyrie irving for max money (which he will surely get). he will be a liability at that price. so it comes down to what you're going to get for the next 2 seasons vs what you're sending out

defense matters. passing matters. rebounding matters. kyrie provides none of that. and he doesn't score at elite efficiency to somewhat make up for all his deficiencies. we've been over this

p.s.: if danny green was irrelevant he wouldn't have gotten the money he did. from one of the best GMs the league has ever seen

I agree about Danny Green, he does have some value, but him and Aldridge is a LITTLE light for an asset like Kyrie.

That said, if you don't think NBA GM's would line up to pay Kyrie the max without having to give up assets, you simply don't understand the economics of the NBA.

in no business on the face of the earth is it a good idea to pay way more than something is worth. paying 30% of your cap for kyrie irving is like paying for a high priced meal and getting a great burger, no sides and no drink

teams will do it. but they won't like the return on their investment. give him an average supporting cast and he'll give you years of missing the playoffs. poor man's (prime) melo. and teams were lined up to pay melo the max as well. but I guess I've got a lot to learn from james dolan and phil Jackson when it comes to nba economics

ESPN's xRAPM wins contributed last season:

20.4 lebron
15.5 kawhi (a real max player)

8.9 melo (2013-2014, downhill from there)
8.2 kyrie
5.8 Aldridge
4.9 mills (in only 22 mpg)
4.8 green (27 mpg)
1.4 parker

That's all your opinion, but the fact is lots of teams are willing to pay him the max. Sometimes you have to take your own bias feelings aside and look at it from a business sense, you kind of did that by saying "im sure someone will give him the max" so you are aware of reality, just don't seem to be willing to accept it.

[dice]

I agree about Danny Green, he does have some value, but him and Aldridge is a LITTLE light for an asset like Kyrie.

That said, if you don't think NBA GM's would line up to pay Kyrie the max without having to give up assets, you simply don't understand the economics of the NBA.

in no business on the face of the earth is it a good idea to pay way more than something is worth. paying 30% of your cap for kyrie irving is like paying for a high priced meal and getting a great burger, no sides and no drink

teams will do it. but they won't like the return on their investment. give him an average supporting cast and he'll give you years of missing the playoffs. poor man's (prime) melo. and teams were lined up to pay melo the max as well. but I guess I've got a lot to learn from james dolan and phil Jackson when it comes to nba economics

ESPN's xRAPM wins contributed last season:

20.4 lebron
15.5 kawhi (a real max player)

8.9 melo (2013-2014, downhill from there)
8.2 kyrie
5.8 Aldridge
4.9 mills (in only 22 mpg)
4.8 green (27 mpg)
1.4 parker

That's all your opinion, but the fact is lots of teams are willing to pay him the max. Sometimes you have to take your own bias feelings aside and look at it from a business sense, you kind of did that by saying "im sure someone will give him the max" so you are aware of reality, just don't seem to be willing to accept it.

I provided a lot of facts there, which you chalk up to opinion, then you fall into the "everybody else is doing it, so that's reality" trap. i COMPLETELY accept the reality that many teams are willing to overpay kyrie irving. so that's a total lie on your part. thing is, that reality has absolutely nothing to do with whether he's actually WORTH a max contract

you fail to accept the reality that teams WILL BE overpaying him. which is effectively a failure to accept logic. making kyrie irving the centerpiece of your team is an invitation to mediocrity. if he is paid the max to go to a team that's not already good, that team will fail. just like melo has. do you accept the reality that melo has failed? I'm guessing no. either that or you have no shortage of excuses for why he has

a concise, logical, orderly distillation of the above reality:

1) a lot of teams will be offering kyrie irving max money
2) a lot of teams have offered a lot of players who weren't worth it max money
3) kyrie irving is not worth max money

you will find very few occasions in life (if any) where "everybody else is doing it" is a sound logical foundation for a decision. whether that's giving your brand new quarterback only 25% of snaps in the first preseason game, deciding to experiment with drugs, or paying kyrie irving 30% of your salary cap

[tocooks101]

in no business on the face of the earth is it a good idea to pay way more than something is worth. paying 30% of your cap for kyrie irving is like paying for a high priced meal and getting a great burger, no sides and no drink

teams will do it. but they won't like the return on their investment. give him an average supporting cast and he'll give you years of missing the playoffs. poor man's (prime) melo. and teams were lined up to pay melo the max as well. but I guess I've got a lot to learn from james dolan and phil Jackson when it comes to nba economics

ESPN's xRAPM wins contributed last season:

20.4 lebron
15.5 kawhi (a real max player)

8.9 melo (2013-2014, downhill from there)
8.2 kyrie
5.8 Aldridge
4.9 mills (in only 22 mpg)
4.8 green (27 mpg)
1.4 parker

That's all your opinion, but the fact is lots of teams are willing to pay him the max. Sometimes you have to take your own bias feelings aside and look at it from a business sense, you kind of did that by saying "im sure someone will give him the max" so you are aware of reality, just don't seem to be willing to accept it.

I provided a lot of facts there, which you chalk up to opinion, then you fall into the "everybody else is doing it, so that's reality" trap. i COMPLETELY accept the reality that many teams are willing to overpay kyrie irving. so that's a total lie on your part. thing is, that reality has absolutely nothing to do with whether he's actually WORTH a max contract

you fail to accept the reality that teams WILL BE overpaying him. which is effectively a failure to accept logic. making kyrie irving the centerpiece of your team is an invitation to mediocrity. if he is paid the max to go to a team that's not already good, that team will fail. just like melo has. do you accept the reality that melo has failed? I'm guessing no. either that or you have no shortage of excuses for why he has

a concise, logical, orderly distillation of the above reality:

1) a lot of teams will be offering kyrie irving max money
2) a lot of teams have offered a lot of players who weren't worth it max money
3) kyrie irving is not worth max money

you will find very few occasions in life (if any) where "everybody else is doing it" is a sound logical foundation for a decision. whether that's giving your brand new quarterback only 25% of snaps in the first preseason game, deciding to experiment with drugs, or paying kyrie irving 30% of your salary cap

You are worth what someone will pay you, if someone is going to pay you the max and the market will bare it, you are worth the max. Its as simple as that. It's economics 101. You need to reattach with reality.

[Bobalob]

frankly, I'm not sure why the spurs do that. hail mary attempt to try to close the gap on the warriors? very unlike them. they should promote patty mills to starter and bring parker off the bench to hopefully rejuvenate his game in the last year of his contract. that's at least somewhere close to as good at the PG position as bringing in kyrie to start. why deplete other positions to bring in kyrie, who's not a spurs kind of player to begin with?

Wait, what!?

First off the article is bulls***. But you wouldn't trade an injured and old TP, an irrelevant Danny Green, and a soft (and only 1 year left and no chance in hell resigning) Lamarcus Aldridge for Kyrie?

what you're failing to understand is that no team should WANT to resign kyrie irving for max money (which he will surely get). he will be a liability at that price. so it comes down to what you're going to get for the next 2 seasons vs what you're sending out

defense matters. passing matters. rebounding matters. kyrie provides none of that. and he doesn't score at elite efficiency to somewhat make up for all his deficiencies. we've been over this

p.s.: if danny green was irrelevant he wouldn't have gotten the money he did. from one of the best GMs the league has ever seen

Man, what!?

I can find a guy off the street---LITERALLY---to play defense. I can find a guy off the street---LITERALLY, to rebound. There's a handful of players who can do wht Kyrie does.

There's a reason a demar Derozan is more valuable than Andre Roberson. This anti-offense nonsense is

[ChokeFasncists]

frankly, I'm not sure why the spurs do that. hail mary attempt to try to close the gap on the warriors? very unlike them. they should promote patty mills to starter and bring parker off the bench to hopefully rejuvenate his game in the last year of his contract. that's at least somewhere close to as good at the PG position as bringing in kyrie to start. why deplete other positions to bring in kyrie, who's not a spurs kind of player to begin with?

Mills isn't very suitable to be a starting PG tho.

I guess they are banking on themselves changing Kyrie.

[Unwell]

LMAO! I don't believe this at all unless Popavich is planning to retire because he is notorious for not allowing point guards to dribble around like a "And 1" trick show. He demands moving the ball and playing defense too. Why would he give up anything for Kyrie. So he can be mad about being in Kawai shadow too? Kyrie is going to be a second option on any contending team because he's only a great one on one offensive option. His defense and ability to create for others is very questionable. To walk away from the second best team in the league, the pay willingly passing superstar, and max money would make any team question what exactly his goal is?

[Barcs]

This makes way more sense than the Knicks trade. The Spurs need a point guard with Parker getting to the end of his days.