Kyrie Trade Discussion Continued

[clyde21]

I'm sure he gets moved somewhere that nobody expects

He's going to the Pistons, I think.

Unless a third team is involved it's not happening.

[collidingNeurons]

Wish Jazz could get in on Kyrie, they would be the perfect team to hide his weaknesses (mainly defense) and really let him do what he's good at 3pt shooting. Doubt they have what the cavs need though for a trade to work out.

maybe something centered around Mitchell to the Suns, Bledsoe to the Cavs and Kyrie to the Jazz,with other assets and picks to even out the trade

[DowJones]

Bledsoe, Warren, Miami 1st vs Chandler, Murray, Denver 1st

I don't know why one gets panned at every mention yet the next is a great deal.

-The picks are about a wash.
-Chandler>Warren. Chandler is good and can guard KD to some extend while proving good shooting on the offensive end.
-Murray just has much more value than Bledsoe and a team with a disgruntled superstar near the trade deadline may find a package centered around Murray/Denver first to be pretty good. They wouldn't care at all about Bledsoe.

I am also scared of those Bledsoe knees...mainly that meniscus in the left knee. If it follows the same pattern as the right knee then Bledsoe may require a very serious operation later this year.

[gaspar]

Bledsoe, Bender, Miami 1st vs Chandler, Murray, Denver 1st

I don't know why one gets panned at every mention yet the next is a great deal.

I don't understand how anyone would consider the 2nd over the first.

Bledsoe is an infinitely better player than Chandler. Bender and Murry are basically two non factors until next season, even if Murry is the better player the advantage Bledsoe has over Chandler is massive. And the Miami pick will most likely be better than the Denver pick.

It's also hilarious that the guy who **** on Bledsoe for his injury history would prefer Wilson Chandler, who as recently as 2016 missed whole season due to a hip surgery and had other seasons in his career where he played 8, 21, 35 and 43 games and he's 2 years older than Bledsoe and has a worse contract.

Murray/Harris + DEN 1st vs Warren/Chriss/Bender + MIA 1st is close and I can understand why someone would prefer Denver's package, but Bledsoe is 2 tiers above Chandler, especially for the Cavs who would need a point guard much more than a forward.

[DowJones]

Bledsoe, Bender, Miami 1st vs Chandler, Murray, Denver 1st

I don't know why one gets panned at every mention yet the next is a great deal.

I don't understand how anyone would consider the 2nd over the first.

Bledsoe is an infinitely better player than Chandler. Bender and Murry are basically two non factors until next season, even if Murry is the better player the advantage Bledsoe has over Chandler is massive. And the Miami pick will most likely be better than the Denver pick.

It's also hilarious that the guy who **** on Bledsoe for his injury history would prefer Wilson Chandler, who as recently as 2016 missed whole season due to a hip surgery and had other seasons in his career where he played 8, 21, 35 and 43 games and he's 2 years older than Bledsoe and has a worse contract.

Murray/Harris + DEN 1st vs Warren/Chriss/Bender + MIA 1st is close and I can understand why someone would prefer Denver's package, but Bledsoe is 2 tiers above Chandler, especially for the Cavs who would need a point guard much more than a forward.

Why can't you be fair with me? Chandler isn't the best asset in a Kyrie trade. Why are we comparing Chandler to Bledsoe? Compare Murray to Bledsoe as those are the key assets in the 2 deals.

Murray>>>>2 years of Bledsoe.

[RCM88x]

I don't understand how anyone would consider the 2nd over the first.

Bledsoe is an infinitely better player than Chandler. Bender and Murry are basically two non factors until next season, even if Murry is the better player the advantage Bledsoe has over Chandler is massive. And the Miami pick will most likely be better than the Denver pick.

It's also hilarious that the guy who **** on Bledsoe for his injury history would prefer Wilson Chandler, who as recently as 2016 missed whole season due to a hip surgery and had other seasons in his career where he played 8, 21, 35 and 43 games and he's 2 years older than Bledsoe and has a worse contract.

Murray/Harris + DEN 1st vs Warren/Chriss/Bender + MIA 1st is close and I can understand why someone would prefer Denver's package, but Bledsoe is 2 tiers above Chandler, especially for the Cavs who would need a point guard much more than a forward.

Why can't you be fair with me? Chandler isn't the best asset in a Kyrie trade. Why are we comparing Chandler to Bledsoe? Compare Murray to Bledsoe as those are the key assets in the 2 deals.

Murray>>>>2 years of Bledsoe.

I'm not sure I agree with that at all. Murray could be a good player, but I don't know if a prospect like him should have any value to the Cavs. He'll likely be a small contributor at best this upcoming season, which is far more important than the next 5 or so you'd be able to control him for. Plus, Bledsoe still would have trade value in a year if dealing him is in the best interest of the team, probably more than Murray would, especailly after a marginal season.

[gaspar]

I don't understand how anyone would consider the 2nd over the first.

Bledsoe is an infinitely better player than Chandler. Bender and Murry are basically two non factors until next season, even if Murry is the better player the advantage Bledsoe has over Chandler is massive. And the Miami pick will most likely be better than the Denver pick.

It's also hilarious that the guy who **** on Bledsoe for his injury history would prefer Wilson Chandler, who as recently as 2016 missed whole season due to a hip surgery and had other seasons in his career where he played 8, 21, 35 and 43 games and he's 2 years older than Bledsoe and has a worse contract.

Murray/Harris + DEN 1st vs Warren/Chriss/Bender + MIA 1st is close and I can understand why someone would prefer Denver's package, but Bledsoe is 2 tiers above Chandler, especially for the Cavs who would need a point guard much more than a forward.

Why can't you be fair with me? Chandler isn't the best asset in a Kyrie trade. Why are we comparing Chandler to Bledsoe? Compare Murray to Bledsoe as those are the key assets in the 2 deals.

Murray>>>>2 years of Bledsoe.

No, they aren't. Bledsoe and Chandler are the centerpieces, as they would have the most on court impact next season. Value of sophomore Murray should be compared to sophomore Chriss/Bender, not Bledsoe.

[Jack Dempsey]

Murray>>>>2 years of Bledsoe.

Potentialwise YES but right now NO. At this point Bledsoe is the clearly better player and with the Cavs being in a win-now mode he should have much more value to them.

[Kerrsed]

It's also hilarious that the guy who **** on Bledsoe for his injury history would prefer Wilson Chandler, who as recently as 2016 missed whole season due to a hip surgery and had other seasons in his career where he played 8, 21, 35 and 43 games and he's 2 years older than Bledsoe and has a worse contract.

Murray/Harris + DEN 1st vs Warren/Chriss/Bender + MIA 1st is close and I can understand why someone would prefer Denver's package, but Bledsoe is 2 tiers above Chandler, especially for the Cavs who would need a point guard much more than a forward.

Why can't you be fair with me? Chandler isn't the best asset in a Kyrie trade. Why are we comparing Chandler to Bledsoe? Compare Murray to Bledsoe as those are the key assets in the 2 deals.

Murray>>>>2 years of Bledsoe.

No, they aren't. Bledsoe and Chandler are the centerpieces, as they would have the most on court impact next season. Value of sophomore Murray should be compared to sophomore Chriss/Bender, not Bledsoe.

Exactly this!

Cleveland wants a player to help win now, a youngster with potential, and a pick, so it only makes sense to compare the players with the category they fit.

Bledsoe/Chandler for now.
Warren/Murray as youngster with potential.
MIA/DEN picks.

[rasta_marley]

The argument that Kyrie couldnt carry his own team doesnt really hold weight imo since the team wasnt catered around him as they knew Lebron could possibly return. Waiters and Verejao as your sidekicks isnt winning anything even with prime lebron im sry. Lets see how he actually would do if a franchise gets behind him and gives him real players ala Iverson in Philly

Last years finals reminded me just how freaking good kyrie is... But hes no iverson lol.

However that is a matter of opinion while sure you can look at stats you do have to consider the different times they played in.

Regardless kyrie is very good will be interesting to see just how good without lebron around.

Sent from my LG-K373 using RealGM mobile app

[phraoh]

I would rather have the Denver trade vs. the Phoenix trade listed (though don't think either is good enough, and think each could have some additions to make sense) since I think Bender is and will be a major bust (or is 3-4 years away from contributing) and Bledsoe is an injury waiting to happen and Cavs need another player under Lebron's agent like they need a hole in the head. At least with Chandler you add some D and he can play with a small ball lineup, and Murray looks to be like a player in a year or two. Again, neither is ideal and hopefully they will get more than either one.

[NaturalBuns]

I would rather have the Denver trade vs. the Phoenix trade listed (though don't think either is good enough, and think each could have some additions to make sense) since I think Bender is and will be a major bust (or is 3-4 years away from contributing) and Bledsoe is an injury waiting to happen and Cavs need another player under Lebron's agent like they need a hole in the head. At least with Chandler you add some D and he can play with a small ball lineup, and Murray looks to be like a player in a year or two. Again, neither is ideal and hopefully they will get more than either one.

Wilson chandler is even more injury prone then Bledsoe.

[DowJones]

It's also hilarious that the guy who **** on Bledsoe for his injury history would prefer Wilson Chandler, who as recently as 2016 missed whole season due to a hip surgery and had other seasons in his career where he played 8, 21, 35 and 43 games and he's 2 years older than Bledsoe and has a worse contract.

Murray/Harris + DEN 1st vs Warren/Chriss/Bender + MIA 1st is close and I can understand why someone would prefer Denver's package, but Bledsoe is 2 tiers above Chandler, especially for the Cavs who would need a point guard much more than a forward.

Why can't you be fair with me? Chandler isn't the best asset in a Kyrie trade. Why are we comparing Chandler to Bledsoe? Compare Murray to Bledsoe as those are the key assets in the 2 deals.

Murray>>>>2 years of Bledsoe.

I'm not sure I agree with that at all. Murray could be a good player, but I don't know if a prospect like him should have any value to the Cavs. He'll likely be a small contributor at best this upcoming season, which is far more important than the next 5 or so you'd be able to control him for. Plus, Bledsoe still would have trade value in a year if dealing him is in the best interest of the team, probably more than Murray would, especailly after a marginal season.

If our goal is just to make a move with 2017-2018 in mind then we need to keep Kyrie. We have no chance of beating Golden State by swapping Kyrie with Bledsoe. None. That ends our championship hopes. Kyrie would also then have more trade value than Bledsoe a year from now.

You think 1 year of Eric Bledsoe would hold more trade value than a 21 year old Jamal Murray? I guess that is where you and I disagree.

[NatiboyB]

I agree. If all we are expected to get is just Bledsoe by himself it makes no sense to make this trade. We need someone additional along with Bledsoe.

Why can't you be fair with me? Chandler isn't the best asset in a Kyrie trade. Why are we comparing Chandler to Bledsoe? Compare Murray to Bledsoe as those are the key assets in the 2 deals.

Murray>>>>2 years of Bledsoe.

I'm not sure I agree with that at all. Murray could be a good player, but I don't know if a prospect like him should have any value to the Cavs. He'll likely be a small contributor at best this upcoming season, which is far more important than the next 5 or so you'd be able to control him for. Plus, Bledsoe still would have trade value in a year if dealing him is in the best interest of the team, probably more than Murray would, especailly after a marginal season.

If our goal is just to make a move with 2017-2018 in mind then we need to keep Kyrie. We have no chance of beating Golden State by swapping Kyrie with Bledsoe. None. That ends our championship hopes. Kyrie would also then have more trade value than Bledsoe a year from now.

You think 1 year of Eric Bledsoe would hold more trade value than a 21 year old Jamal Murray? I guess that is where you and I disagree.

[Fo-Real]

I would rather have the Denver trade vs. the Phoenix trade listed (though don't think either is good enough, and think each could have some additions to make sense) since I think Bender is and will be a major bust (or is 3-4 years away from contributing) and Bledsoe is an injury waiting to happen and Cavs need another player under Lebron's agent like they need a hole in the head. At least with Chandler you add some D and he can play with a small ball lineup, and Murray looks to be like a player in a year or two. Again, neither is ideal and hopefully they will get more than either one.

IF TRUE... since it has been it has been reported that Murray is untouchable (like the Suns Booker and Jackson) the whoe argument is moot. Its like arguing who would win a real fight out of the tag teams of Batman/Hulk vs Superman/Thor. (You are actually gonna argue that for a page probably). You are arguing fiction not fact. Hopefully the Suns have taken it's name out of the hat so the Cavs can narrow down it's focus on what win now piece they trade Kyrie for. The argument should probably be The Bucks vs the Pistons or something. Suns should change their number ride out what they are already doing.

[Stillwater]

There is no way to "know the actual" lengths they will go or the sacrifices any org is willing to go . Sure they put it out there certain players are not available,to try to gain leverage and place a higher value on their own assets should they decide to then move said players but have bargaining power in pick protections etc (because from the outside it appears they are already giving up more than they wanted to), but in reality any player short of a franchise player is always available for a price. Some teams don't play these games and will even say the word untouchable, but when those claims are made than they are simply stating that they are only somewhat interested if there is a fire sale bargain which would not require them to make said sacrifices.That takes them out of the game when the big dogs show up anyway.
I feel that the fact that the assumption is that KI will be moved has lead a lot of teams with a little interest to place certain names out there as untouchable, but in reality they have no shot of getting KI without changing their position,but they don't care because they were not that interested anyway unless it was a fleecing. Whereas the teams/orgs with real interest no one has much idea what they are planning on or are willing to move nor do they have any intentions of placing anyone on a some not available list to the public when they don't know what the Cav's are really going to be doing with KI, or how bad they really need to move him.

[mg]

There is no way to "know the actual" lengths they will go or the sacrifices any org is willing to go . Sure they put it out there certain players are not available,to try to gain leverage and place a higher value on their own assets should they decide to then move said players but have bargaining power in pick protections etc (because from the outside it appears they are already giving up more than they wanted to), but in reality any player short of a franchise player is always available for a price. Some teams don't play these games and will even say the word untouchable, but when those claims are made than they are simply stating that they are only somewhat interested if there is a fire sale bargain which would not require them to make said sacrifices.That takes them out of the game when the big dogs show up anyway.
I feel that the fact that the assumption is that KI will be moved has lead a lot of teams with a little interest to place certain names out there as untouchable, but in reality they have no shot of getting KI without changing their position,but they don't care because they were not that interested anyway unless it was a fleecing. Whereas the teams/orgs with real interest no one has much idea what they are planning on or are willing to move nor do they have any intentions of placing anyone on a some not available list to the public when they don't know what the Cav's are really going to be doing with KI, or how bad they really need to move him.

Yeah I agree the real contenders are the teams waiting in the weeds here. Phoenix/Denver are likely just media red herrings at this point simply based on their assets and little else.

I would be looking more at Gilbert's ties with Detroit, and the so called "big dogs" such as Michael Jordan with Charlotte, Pat Riley in Miami, Mark Cuban and a few others. For the most part, except for Miami denying an offer (yeah, right) they have all been quiet on the topic too. I'd expect it to heat up a bit more as we get closer to training camp if indeed a deal is going down.

[BigLurch92]

Kyrie is not going anywhere. This sh*t is such a joke. If they had a good deal it would have already happened.

Opening night 2017:

Kyrie is a Cavalier and Carmelo is a Knick

Do not evade language filter.

[infinite11285]

Been really quiet on the Cavs front. I wonder if they're considering avenues to smooth this out between him and James.

[jbk1234]

It's also hilarious that the guy who **** on Bledsoe for his injury history would prefer Wilson Chandler, who as recently as 2016 missed whole season due to a hip surgery and had other seasons in his career where he played 8, 21, 35 and 43 games and he's 2 years older than Bledsoe and has a worse contract.

Murray/Harris + DEN 1st vs Warren/Chriss/Bender + MIA 1st is close and I can understand why someone would prefer Denver's package, but Bledsoe is 2 tiers above Chandler, especially for the Cavs who would need a point guard much more than a forward.

Why can't you be fair with me? Chandler isn't the best asset in a Kyrie trade. Why are we comparing Chandler to Bledsoe? Compare Murray to Bledsoe as those are the key assets in the 2 deals.

Murray>>>>2 years of Bledsoe.

No, they aren't. Bledsoe and Chandler are the centerpieces, as they would have the most on court impact next season. Value of sophomore Murray should be compared to sophomore Chriss/Bender, not Bledsoe.

I promise you that the Cavs don't view either Bledsoe or Chandler as the centerpieces.