Kyrie Irving for Derrick Favors

[d-will8]

All this "bad draft" talk has obscured the fact that Irving is a legitimately awesome prospect. There is an issue with the amount of PT he got this last year in college, but he was HIGHLY productive when he did play (if his season stats would have been the product of full season, it would have been the best statistical season by a freshman PG...ever; he was that good) and he was a top 5 HS recruit. Considering that half a decade ago we were drafting players straight out of HS in the top 3 every.single.year, its hard to hit him too much for lack of PT. Irving, imo, is going to be great. He has the intangibles, skills and craft that produce great basketball players. I would take him ahead of Wall and Rose(who is the most overrated player in the NBA by a mile right now). I love him and think he will be a legit star-to-superstar.

He is a better prospect right now than either Paul or D-Will when they came out, and if he had been healthy all year I think he would have solidified himself as the #1 just as solidly as Wall did before him...and let's not forget that going into the workout phase of the 2008 draft, it was Beasley that was considered the "prize" and Rose that was #2.

If Irving really projects to be that good, trading Favors for him straight up would definitely be something to strongly consider. I just don't see it, though. Admittedly, I haven't watched him play all that much, so I don't claim to be an expert (or anything remotely close to that) in regards to evaluating the guy's NBA future. Still, if he truly projected as an all-time great point guard (which you seem fairly certain he will be), I would expect to hear more draft scouts talking about him with the same type of superlatives with which they talked about Rose and Wall before him.

Maybe you're right, though. Maybe his greatness is obscured by how bad this draft is and by the concerns about whether or not he's proven enough. Maybe you see something that basically nobody else does. Having said that, I have an incredibly hard time believing he'll be better or even close to as good as Rose and Wall.

[finnegan]

Still, if he truly projected as an all-time great point guard (which you seem fairly certain he will be), I would expect to hear more draft scouts talking about him with the same type of superlatives with which they talked about Rose and Wall before him.

Maybe his greatness is obscured by how bad this draft is and by the concerns about whether or not he's proven enough.

Scouts said he was worse after the injury, and yet his stats were still amazing:

Notes: Turf toe injury has sidelined him for all but 11 games of his freshman season … When he returned from injury, he looked out of shape and was not as dynamic as he had been in the early part of the season.

http://www.nbadraft.net/players/kyrie-irving

How many times have you seen this headline for a PG:

Duke Will Change Offense To Accommodate Kyrie Irving

Mike Krzyzewski says the addition of Kyrie Irving will transform the team's entire offense.

"We'll change our whole offense, the way we play because of Kyrie," Krzyzewski said Wednesday.

"Just like we did when we had Jason Williams, he'll make a big impact right away. He's going to be very, very good."

Krzyzewski said Irving will benefit from the return of Singler and junior guard Nolan Smith to a core that also includes big men Miles and Mason Plumlee and guard Seth Curry.

"We'll run a lot more, we'll press and he's fortunate to have Nolan Smith and Kyle Singler on the perimeter with him and the Plumlees," Krzyzewski said. "He'll have good weapons with him."

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/20 ... rie_Irving

They were refering to the motorcycle accident Jason Williams, and not the retire-unretire-retire Jason Williams.

[erudite23]

Listen, things change in hind sight. First of all, athleticism is a trait that carries far too much emphasis in scouting circles. The best PGs in the NBA right now are Deron Williams and Chris Paul, and Steve Nash is not far behind.

Rose just got done shooting his team out of the playoffs and visibly demonstrating his inability to run an offense. Wall, for all his scoring and assisting prowess, was one of the 10 most inefficient players in the NBA this year--amazing even for a rookie. Meanwhile, Paul is insanely efficient, smart, and able to get inferior players to play at a level that gives him a fighting chance against most opponents. Williams cerebral game and amazing crossover allow him to control games despite the fact that he can't finish over the top of a defense. Nash reigned supreme for years because of his ridiculous skill level (handing, passing, shooting) and his amazing BBIQ and floor vision.

Those are the best PGs of the last half decade, and nowhere in there do you hear anything about 40 inch verticals, scoring binges and speed in the open court.

The PG position is about intelligence and skill first, athleticism second. Kyrie is a skill and smarts guy, not an insane athlete. Its just a flaw in scouts perceptions that has been born out over the long history of evaluating young talent. It used to be unheard of to take ANY PG #1, but has come into vogue lately because of the rise of the position in general and the amazing physical gifts of guys like Rose, Westbrook and Wall. But looking back you would have had no issue whatever with taking Kidd #1 in his draft, or GP #1 in his, or Paul/Williams #1 in theirs. Yet at the time everyone would have told you how crazy it was considering this and this and this.

I could absolutely be wrong about Kyrie Irving. Sure. In fact, I probably am, because the instances of a prospect turning out exactly as good as you expected him to be are few and far between. But I am confident that he will be AT LEAST a borderline All Star (which is worthy of top 5 status in most years) and I think there's a good chance he could be great.

The reason why I am willing to feel this way despite what most people say is that I have been following the draft for a decade now, and I've heard too many prospects be unfairly categorized for the sake of thumbnail thinking. To wit:

- Brandon Roy was a safe pick with limited upside.
- Andrew Bogut was a solid big guy who would probably never be great, and was likely to be a defensive liability...but hey its a ridiculously weak draft, so I guess he should go 1st overall.
- Marvin Williams was insanely athletic and could play either forward position at a high level.
- Dwyane Wade was limited as a shooter and too much of a combo guard to be a star.
- Brook Lopez didn't score at a high enough rate to be an effective scoring big in the league, and besides look at the history of big white stiffs going after the 3rd pick in the draft.
- Kevin Love is too short and unathletic to succeed at a high level in the NBA.
- OJ Mayo will assuredly be a big time scorer, but can he give you anything else?
- Stephen Curry doesn't have the size, athleticism or defensive ability to be anything more than a shooting specialist in the league and he can't play PG.
- Michael Beasley will be the best player in this draft because of his unlimited range and ability to score from anywhere on the floor.
- Michael Beasley is a head case and isn't worth a 2nd round pick (less than 2 years later).
- Dwight Howard should never be picked over Emeka Okafor because Okafor is a proven commodity and Howard might or might not pan out. You at least know you're getting a star in Okafor.



I mean....I could go on and on and on. People put ceilings on guys that are 100% a product of their own misconceptions, and these are all TOP TEN PICKS, guys that are the elite talents in the draft. I mean, every year there are guys taken in the late 1st or into the 2nd that become quality starters, borderline All Stars, or flat out stars and no one thought they ever would, but here we are saying "Now, this is one of the 5 best players in this draft, but he will not be elite." Huh?? I laugh every time I hear that Kyrie Irving can't be the best or top 3 PG in the league, because how many of the top PGs in the league were ever expected to be? CP wasn't. DWill wasn't. Nash wasn't. Billups WAS...then wasn't. Stockton wasn't. Price wasn't. Hell, if Westbrook ever gets there, and I think he will eventually, he sure as hell wasn't.

So what DO you have to do to be considered a potential ELITE PG? Hmmmmm?? Pretty simple: you have to be an elite, insane, ridiculous athlete, OR you have to have done amazing things in game at the college level and made a name for yourself while still being physically gifted.

I think if you gave Kyrie a year or two extra in college, he would be considered an unbelievable prospect because he would have a chance to show his intangibles over the course of a long period of time. Take that away, and all you have is a physical package that is very good and a bunch of sight-unseen "intangibles." I believe that he has it all and will prove it out over time, and I've learned how to filter what the experts say through the lens of history. I'm confident that Kyrie will be very good and has an excellent chance to be great.

[jazzfan1971]

"I'm confident that -------- will be very good and has an excellent chance to be great."

I'm confident that statement applied to every non-center ever drafted #1. Well, almost every one anyway.

I don't think it's a very predictive statment anyway. If you want to tell me where he'll rank among PGs in the league in his 3rd year, now that's something I can work with.

I'll say he'll be the 7th best PG in the league in his 3rd year. (end of year)

[shrink]

Wow! I rarely venture over to the UTA forum, and there's a whole thread here based on something I wrote! I find that cool, especially because people have a different point of view.

I made this argument a few weeks ago on the Trade Board, and it goes into more detail to explain my case.

Thanks for making this thread fishercob. It's something I've mentioned on both the UTA and MIN threads.

Some Jazz posters mentioned that the team would never do this trade because Favors was the key player in the Deron deal, and as all teams do, their fans see their young player with potential as who he may be, rather than who he is most likely to be. We all want to see our youth as future superstars once they put on our uniforms.

However, I think the Jazz front office would seriously have to consider a Kyrie for Favors swap for several reasons:

1. Position. Losing Deron hurts, but Kyrie fills that role better than the Al/Favors combo, that strands Millsap.

2. First Year Play. Favors has had a year in the NBA, and wasn't spectacular. Maybe it's too much to assume he would be. But matched with Kyrie's blank NBA scorecard, Kyrie gets the nod.

3. Age? I suppose I should check.

4. Contract. The cost-conscious Jazz may prefer one extra year on rookie scale

5. Ticket Sales. For the next six months, Kyrie Irving is going to be leading off lots and lots of articles, newscasts, etc. Stories about the Lottery will feature his picture. As the draft approaches, his will be the first name mentioned. Who looks good in summer league? What teams have made big changes in their 2011 rosters? Who looks good in the pre-season. All eyes will be on Kyrie, and that's plenty of free advertising.

The Jazz' market can only bear low ticket prices, but the franchise does OK in tiny Salt Lake City because everyone goes to their games. With Deron gone, Sloan gone, and a horrible end to the season, I think they need to do everything they can to sell tickets, and I think Kyrie trumps Favors in that department.

Asking the question, "where would Kyrie go in the draft?" is misguided unless you add in "Where would he go - if he wouldn't get the same publicity as a different #1, if he had a yearlong opportunity against nba competition and wasn't fantastic, that he would have one year less on rookie scale, etc etc." that compares apples to apples. I've got no specific fan interest in Irving or Favors, and neither really fits my team (the wolves), but I think when you factor in all the differences between Irving and Favors, I think Irving > Favors.

[erudite23]

An argument based around fluff is the wrong one to make when you're talking about the Jazz. The have been all steak and (very little to-) no sizzle since they've been around. They understand that the ONLY move to make is the one that is best for the on-court fortunes of the team. Ultimately, a quick fix like a rookie PG that will make noise for being a more flashy player and/or personality will just hurt your boxoffice if he isn't the better PLAYER (esp. for your team). Not saying Kyrie won't be, but that all the other considerations are NON-considerations.

The Jazz have wanted a true big guy that could hold down the interior for us for a long time. We've never had one. The FO understands the importance of that type of player and what he can do for a team. They won't trade him away for a short term bump in revenue (and that's assuming your hypothesis is correct, which I could make a serious argument against, but I won't) or for all the other stuff. Its simple: who is the better player for the Utah Jazz?

I think its close, and that Utah would consider it. But I think that, just because Derrick wasn't playing 30mpg and throwing up bad shots like DeMarcus Cousins, everyone has assumed he wasn't great in his rookie year. Well, as soon as he got here he outplayed every rookie in the league aside from BG and Monroe on a per-minute basis. He was very, very good. And that's given the fact that he was always going to take some time. Favors is going to be a stud. He'll have a PER over 20 and consistently make the All Defense teams, at the very minimum. How much better he can be than that is up in the air, but I think he's a safe bet to become a very good player.

[shrink]

An argument based around fluff is the wrong one to make when you're talking about the Jazz. The have been all steak and (very little to-) no sizzle since they've been around. They understand that the ONLY move to make is the one that is best for the on-court fortunes of the team.

This is hardly true. For example, the Jazz traded Eric Maynor for financial reason, in the middle of last year's race to the play-offs, no less! I don't begrudge them for making financial moves (for me, I actually admire them), but I can think of no way to argue that was "ONLY a move to make for the best of their on-court fortunes."

Favors is going to be a stud. He'll have a PER over 20 and consistently make the All Defense teams, at the very minimum.

If you think that's his MINIMUM, then there is no reason to continue a discussion.

I think both Favors and Kyrie have a chance to be star players in this league, but both also could join the long list of players with tons of potential that never make that jump. If the potential is close, I think there are several reasons that the Jazz may prefer Kyrie.

[jazzfan1971]

I think Okafor is the minimum, assuming injuries don't change matters.

Maximum I see is a poor man's Duncan, assuming he improves each year for the next 2-3 years.

[finnegan]

A big factor for me is "drop off."

In both the short and long term, I do not think that the "drop off" will be that big from Favors to Milsap. So we keep Milsap, and get Kyrie.

[countrybama24]

He is a better prospect right now than either Paul or D-Will when they came out

He has a lot more negatives in my mind than Deron or Paul when they came out. Paul had elite athleticism, Williams had a track record of efficiency, clutch scoring and ability to see the floor. Kyrie isn't the athlete Paul was, and vs. Williams he's just younger which artificially inflates his upside with question marks. Paul and Dwill only went #3 and #4 because of Bogut (who would go #1 in this draft) and the hawks (who can't draft).

He's good, but we need favors because the Jazz have no other way to get a player of his defensive caliber (whose not one dimensional). We can find kyrie-lite, we can't find another favors without a top 5 pick.

[erudite23]

Very little of that first paragraph is true. Paul did NOT have elite athleticism. In fact, it wasn't even excellent. Just "good" or maybe a little better.

Deron did NOT have a track record of efficiency. He shot in the low 40s from the field and didn't make up for it with a dead eye 3 point shot or tons of FTs. Deron had had some big time performances, true, which is the reason why his stock was that high in the first place. His physical abilities (don't forget that he was quite fat through most of his college days) weren't considered that good, and he didn't put up big numbers.

Kyrie produced at an insane level right from the word go and then came back off of a long layoff with little time to acclimate and still played very very well. The 2005 draft, at the time, was being touted as VERY weak (sound familiar?), and DWill and CP were considered good-to-very good PG prospects by scouts. But the conventional wisdom on draft day was that in most years they wouldn't be top 5 prospects. Loldraft.

All that said, I totally agree with the second paragraph. We need Derrick and we're not trading him.

[Getjazz]

DAMN!!! I just wrote a book on here and pushed the wrong button!!!! Anyway I'm in the KEEP FAVORS camp. I feel that the Jazz have so many things going for them right now, why screw with it before it gets started. Harris is more than able to be a STUD PG and Hayward is a stud in the making. Plus Favors and Jeffeson could be great together, (they were in the last few games of the yr). Plus drafting Kanter and say Jimmer gives us a couple of great bench guys to grow with. Not to mention what Manslap could fetch in a trade. Then we get 2 lotto picks next yr (assuming we miss the playoffs) in which could be one of the deepest drafts of all time... Just a thought. So in saying this I feel like Kyrie and Millsap create much less potential and long term success than Favors, Kanter, Harris and a guy like Jason Terry, I mean FREDETTE!!!!!

[Joel Embust]

Would you do it? I think that I would.

I was proposing some trades in the Minnesota forum, and "shrink" suggested that if Cleveland takes Derrick Williams #1, that they would take Kyrie #2 and trade him to us for Derrick Favors + #12, since Rubio is coming over.

Thus we would get Kyrie at #2 and Kanter at #3, at the cost of Favors and possibly Jimmer at #12.

I realize that "shrink" is not the Wolves GM, but it is an interesting proposal. If it were a real proposal, would the Jazz go for it?

Not sure why they would want Favors when they already have Love.

**** NO. I''ve been a huge Favors fan since his Georgia Tech days and I''m glad to see that the majority of this board have finally realized what type of player the Jazz have.

[TDIDDY]

Irving has a ton of question marks stll, favors has shown a ton of promise.

Favors would have been #1 in this draft.

Why do people keep saying this if John Wall would of stayed another year or Cousins they both could of been #1 the fact is he came out and was #3 and was very raw.

[StocktonShorts]

Irving has a ton of question marks stll, favors has shown a ton of promise.

Favors would have been #1 in this draft.

Why do people keep saying this if John Wall would of stayed another year or Cousins they both could of been #1 the fact is he came out and was #3 and was very raw.

Good run on sentence there. I also like the liberties you take with verb conjugation. Don't let anyone tell you "of" isn't a verb!

If you were to ask the Wizards or Kings if they'd trade Wall or Cousins for Irving they'd say 'no'. I don't really get what you're trying to say.

[HammerDunk]

Irving has a ton of question marks stll, favors has shown a ton of promise.

Favors would have been #1 in this draft.

Why do people keep saying this if John Wall would of stayed another year or Cousins they both could of been #1 the fact is he came out and was #3 and was very raw.

Good run on sentence there. I also like the liberties you take with verb conjugation. Don't let anyone tell you "of" isn't a verb!

If you were to ask the Wizards or Kings if they'd trade Wall or Cousins for Irving they'd say 'no'. I don't really get what you're trying to say.

I think they would of at least considered the trades especially since they would of thrown pure common sense out the window while saying this if Kyrie Irving would of been in that draft or Williams he would of been #1 the fact is he could be #3 and loves doughnuts.