Why trading for Kyrie could cost McD his job

[bwgood77]

My biggest concern is we might be assuming Kyrie with Lebron is all the Kyrie we would get, while he may be much more.

I don't remember much of Kyrie before LeBron returned. But he has the skills (not only scoring, he has some awesome passing skills as can be seen on some assist highlights) to be a great player under different systems as well, if he buys in.

In Lowe and Windhorst's podcast, Lowe mentioned something along the lines of "I don't think he has that great vision for passing that someone like Harden has" while explaining a detailed game moment, where a defender slightly loses his man, and Windhorst says that the people in Cleveland say "No, he does...he could do all that, but he just doesn't want to...he wants to do all the fancy dribbling and launch up some impossible looking shot just to show he can do it."

This isn't the first time Windhorst has talked negatively about Kyrie. Windhorst is Lebron's avatar in the world of rumors, leaks and "sources". He's a guy that started covering Lebron in his first stint with Cleveland, then moved to ESPN when Lebron signed with Miami (and when ESPN started a whole section following the Heat) and now he's back in Cleveland covering Lebron.

It comes at no surprise that the guy who's been getting the inside feed from Lebron's camp, significantly helping his career, is going to disparage Kyrie while painting Lebron as the good guy.

Actually what he said was somewhat of a compliment in that he did have those skills. Lowe didn't think he had him. It sounds about right though considering he hasn't ever averaged that many assists. I mean, many point out bad or strange things about Kyrie...Lowe in his article...which has been posted here...even Chauncey Billups, who was being considered as a GM candidate, said this...

Before he turned down the Cavaliers‘ GM position, Chauncey Billups spent time doing his “due diligence” on the organization.

So when he found out that Kyrie Irving had requested a trade, Billups told Altitude Sports 950 that he really wasn’t surprised (starting at 6:21):

http://www.slamonline.com/nba/chauncey-billups-kyrie-irving-trade-i-dont-get/#KkhAOy8fkfMqDWtf.99

“It didn’t really surprise me.

“As they were doing their due diligence on me, I was doing the same thing.

“I knew so much about the situation that the rest of the world doesn’t know.”

Billups was, however, confused as to why Kyrie would want to leave Cleveland.

As a player who prioritized winning above all else, Billups said he can’t imagine Kyrie being able to find a better situation (starting at 7:15):

“That would be alarming to me if I was a team looking to get him because if it’s all about winning—I mean, man, you got a chance to win every single year.

“And not only that, you’re getting everything you want. You’re getting the shots you want. You’re playing for a great coach who’s letting you go to work.

“The game’s on the line, they coming to you. You playing on [national] TV every week.

“To me, I don’t get it.”

[lilfishi22]

It's actually more of a backhanded compliment at the very best.

Look, I still don't really understand why he requested a trade. Perhaps he just wants to get out from Lebron's spotlight. We've seen that before. Dynamic duos (or trios) that decide they want to do their own thing where they feel more valued. Perhaps it's not just about the shots he's getting. Perhaps it's the running of the offense which he wants. Perhaps it's not about the next season. Perhaps it's about the following seasons after Lebron bails. Perhaps he's sick of being in Lebron's boy's club. Or perhaps he doesn't trust the organisation or owner that tried to trade him so the Cleveland CavaLebron's might get better. Perhaps that organisation is more F'd up than the rest of the world really sees. I don't know. Even Billups who's done his DD doesn't know.

All we know is that he wants no part in this Cleveland team. We know he's on the block and we know what the price might be. We know he's locked into his deal for another two seasons. We know he's a multiple time all-star, an NBA champ and has the skills to excel in most teams. More importantly, we know he fits our timeline.

[Mulhollanddrive]

Perception is a strange thing.

12 months ago he made the clutchest shot of the season in game 7 and scored 41 points in game 6.

Now he's considered a chucker who plays no defense with mental question marks.

[RaisingArizona]

It could, but inaction could, too. I think we're all afraid of being hurt again by a BK type deal.

[bwgood77]

It's actually more of a backhanded compliment at the very best.

Look, I still don't really understand why he requested a trade. Perhaps he just wants to get out from Lebron's spotlight. We've seen that before. Dynamic duos (or trios) that decide they want to do their own thing where they feel more valued. Perhaps it's not just about the shots he's getting. Perhaps it's the running of the offense which he wants. Perhaps it's not about the next season. Perhaps it's about the following seasons after Lebron bails. Perhaps he's sick of being in Lebron's boy's club. Or perhaps he doesn't trust the organisation or owner that tried to trade him so the Cleveland CavaLebron's might get better. Perhaps that organisation is more F'd up than the rest of the world really sees. I don't know. Even Billups who's done his DD doesn't know.

All we know is that he wants no part in this Cleveland team. We know he's on the block and we know what the price might be. We know he's locked into his deal for another two seasons. We know he's a multiple time all-star, an NBA champ and has the skills to excel in most teams. More importantly, we know he fits our timeline.

I don't know if you listened to the podcast, but it didn't really sound like Windhorst was trying to make Kyrie sound bad. At least that's not what I took from it. I mean Lowe didn't think he could make those types of great passes, and Windhorst said that he can, but it's just not what he wants to do. I guess he could have just said he can, but that leaves out context if he's truly heard that. I mean it sounds like you think that's not second hand information and is just something he made up. I don't think that's the case.

But anyway, along with your "we know" comments, what we don't know is if he would stay after two years. I know Jackson may not seem like a lot to give up for superstar who hit the game winner in the finals, or to give up a couple of unprotected picks or whatever, but I just don't have a good feeling he'd stay, and I think it ultimately would set our team back in the long run if he did. It also wouldn't surprise me if Booker didn't like playing with him. Not that it should be our primary concern if we are getting a star since we don't have one.

I'm sure most everyone who reads this forum knows I don't like iso play style that much either, so of course that goes heavily into the equation for me of course, because it's not the brand of basketball I like to play. I much prefer the 90s Suns, the Nash Suns, even the Kidd Suns, the current Warriors, the Spurs as of late, etc...that type of style.

[bwgood77]

Perception is a strange thing.

12 months ago he made the clutchest shot of the season in game 7 and scored 41 points in game 6.

Now he's considered a chucker who plays no defense with mental question marks.

I think people know what he is. He is a premier one on one player and clutch player. Playing with LeBron has allowed him to have some big national moments. I think he would have some enormous scoring games with us. The ball would be in his hands a lot. He would probably lead the league in scoring. I think Booker's numbers and touches would go WAY down though. Which I suppose is fine, considering Irving is MUCH MUCH more efficient. Jackson would be a good player with Irving. Booker would possibly get more open looks and efficiency could improve, though he wouldn't score as much overall I don't think.

But I guess you could definitely classify him as a chucker...as mentioned by Lowe in his article, without LeBron, he shoots more shots per 36 than all but like 6 players in history...Kobe wasn't even one of them.

I guess the plus about him taking almost all of our shots is that he shoots better than anyone else so we, as a team, should be more efficient simply due to that.

[bwgood77]

It could, but inaction could, too.

It didn't sound like that when he got his extension. It seemed like Sarver was fine with letting the rebuild take place organically. I thought that was a good thing.

[Qwigglez]

Hypothetically, if we get Kyrie and he left in 2019 because our team was still bad, wouldn't that mean even if we didn't trade for him our team would still be bad thus our 3-4 years tanking effort was meaningless anyway? Or are you basically saying that Kyrie would completely impede all of youths development even though he is a 6'1 PG and Booker/Jackson/Bender/Chriss play different positions?

You scoff at everyone's trade ideas and say they are all crap. Other teams would laugh at our trade proposals unless we include our own two unprotected picks. Other teams have better pieces than us. Even though the Wolves got Butler and Thunder got George for pretty unsubstantial packages. Everyone is saying Kyrie isn't a winner without Lebron yet he would demand more in terms of assets than Butler/George, who both have gotten their team to at least the playoffs by themselves.

If we steer clear of the trade, and our team slowly gets better and more confident playing together with this tight knit group, I believe we can gradually move toward a very tough team that loves playing together, has great skill sets, versatility, etc, and a top tier free agent would then possibly look at the Suns as a place they'd really like to play with, to take us to that next level.

How does our team gain confidence if we are losing every night? And then you say we still need a top tier free agent to take us to that next level. So not only is our team not good enough now to obtain a 25 year old sub-superstar/all-star and keep him past his current contract, but our team won't even be good enough later to do anything by themselves? At what point is a top tier free agent going to want to come to the Suns? In 4 years? By then we have no money for a top free agent because all our guys are on their 2nd contract.

However, if we once again, try to speed up this timeline, by trading significant assets (which is what it would take) to trade for a player used to playing in the finals, and once hitting a game winning shot, to join a team that will be on the outside looking in the two years he is here, he will almost assuredly decide he'd rather play elsewhere to give him that more immediate chance to win.

If he wanted a more immediate chance to win, wouldn't he just stay with the Cavs? Or are you saying, in two years when his contract runs up his mind changes and he wants to win again. And then also saying, that in two years our team is still not anywhere near the playoffs, likely still on the outside looking in. Is our longterm goal to make the playoffs in 5 years? Then maybe contend in what, 7 years?
You do realize, that if Kyrie did come to the Suns (hypothetical trade that didn't include Booker, Jackson, Bender, Chriss) and did stay with us past 2019, what free agents are available in 2019? Jimmy Butler, Kawhi Leonard, Klay Thompson. In 2020, could go after Anthony Davis, Whiteside, Drummond. That team of Kyrie, likely a maxed Booker by 2020, with rookie contract in Jackson/Bender/Chriss isn't enough to lure those guys? And just to make it easier because someone will say we aren't getting Irving without giving up one of those four, Suns give up Bledsoe/Warren both Miami picks, Jones Jr, Raptors 2nd round pick, Suns 2020 pick, and Suns 2022 pick (trying to make a point that Irving to Suns is possible without including the Book/Jackson/Bender/Chriss).

[lilfishi22]

I don't know if you listened to the podcast, but it didn't really sound like Windhorst was trying to make Kyrie sound bad. At least that's not what I took from it. I mean Lowe didn't think he could make those types of great passes, and Windhorst said that he can, but it's just not what he wants to do. I guess he could have just said he can, but that leaves out context if he's truly heard that. I mean it sounds like you think that's not second hand information and is just something he made up. I don't think that's the case.

But anyway, along with your "we know" comments, what we don't know is if he would stay after two years. I know Jackson may not seem like a lot to give up for superstar who hit the game winner in the finals, or to give up a couple of unprotected picks or whatever, but I just don't have a good feeling he'd stay, and I think it ultimately would set our team back in the long run if he did. It also wouldn't surprise me if Booker didn't like playing with him. Not that it should be our primary concern if we are getting a star since we don't have one.

I'm sure most everyone who reads this forum knows I don't like iso play style that much either, so of course that goes heavily into the equation for me of course, because it's not the brand of basketball I like to play. I much prefer the 90s Suns, the Nash Suns, even the Kidd Suns, the current Warriors, the Spurs as of late, etc...that type of style.

I had a listen but I wasn't convinced it was more than a backhanded compliment. If anything, it's a neutral comment, otherwise slightly negative. I don't think he got it from second hand information. As I mentioned, he's a voice for Lebron's camp, I wouldn't be surprised if he did talk to Lebron's camp about Irving's willingness to do this and that came up. I just don't think it's entirely unbiased.

If we're talking about including Jackson, that's a different discussion. I like what I see from Jackson and his potential is considerable so I'm extremely hesitant to part ways with him this early. But I certainly concsidered the risk of Irving walking for nothing and the price I'm willing to pay considering that risk is TJ. I have little attachment to those Miami picks nor Bledsoe.

I don't like iso play either. That's why I wasn't a fan of Rose and Westbrooks during their rise to stardom. I like my PG's who are pass first but in this day and age, all the top PG's can score at the highest level (Wall, Westbrook, Curry) and Irving fits that mold. He doesn't pass as much as those three but in a different system where he is running the show more, I don't see why he couldn't average close 7-8apg. He's still averaging 5.5apg over the past 3 seasons playing with a ball dominant Lebron.

[bwgood77]

Hypothetically, if we get Kyrie and he left in 2019 because our team was still bad, wouldn't that mean even if we didn't trade for him our team would still be bad thus our 3-4 years tanking effort was meaningless anyway? Or are you basically saying that Kyrie would completely impede all of youths development even though he is a 6'1 PG and Booker/Jackson/Bender/Chriss play different positions?

You scoff at everyone's trade ideas and say they are all crap. Other teams would laugh at our trade proposals unless we include our own two unprotected picks. Other teams have better pieces than us. Even though the Wolves got Butler and Thunder got George for pretty unsubstantial packages. Everyone is saying Kyrie isn't a winner without Lebron yet he would demand more in terms of assets than Butler/George, who both have gotten their team to at least the playoffs by themselves.

If we steer clear of the trade, and our team slowly gets better and more confident playing together with this tight knit group, I believe we can gradually move toward a very tough team that loves playing together, has great skill sets, versatility, etc, and a top tier free agent would then possibly look at the Suns as a place they'd really like to play with, to take us to that next level.

How does our team gain confidence if we are losing every night? And then you say we still need a top tier free agent to take us to that next level. So not only is our team not good enough now to obtain a 25 year old sub-superstar/all-star and keep him past his current contract, but our team won't even be good enough later to do anything by themselves? At what point is a top tier free agent going to want to come to the Suns? In 4 years? By then we have no money for a top free agent because all our guys are on their 2nd contract.

However, if we once again, try to speed up this timeline, by trading significant assets (which is what it would take) to trade for a player used to playing in the finals, and once hitting a game winning shot, to join a team that will be on the outside looking in the two years he is here, he will almost assuredly decide he'd rather play elsewhere to give him that more immediate chance to win.

If he wanted a more immediate chance to win, wouldn't he just stay with the Cavs? Or are you saying, in two years when his contract runs up his mind changes and he wants to win again. And then also saying, that in two years our team is still not anywhere near the playoffs, likely still on the outside looking in. Is our longterm goal to make the playoffs in 5 years? Then maybe contend in what, 7 years?
You do realize, that if Kyrie did come to the Suns (hypothetical trade that didn't include Booker, Jackson, Bender, Chriss) and did stay with us past 2019, what free agents are available in 2019? Jimmy Butler, Kawhi Leonard, Klay Thompson. In 2020, could go after Anthony Davis, Whiteside, Drummond. That team of Kyrie, likely a maxed Booker by 2020, with rookie contract in Jackson/Bender/Chriss isn't enough to lure those guys? And just to make it easier because someone will say we aren't getting Irving without giving up one of those four, Suns give up Bledsoe/Warren both Miami picks, Jones Jr, Raptors 2nd round pick, Suns 2020 pick, and Suns 2022 pick (trying to make a point that Irving to Suns is possible without including the Book/Jackson/Bender/Chriss).

I think our team is tight knit and will have good chemistry with who we have right now, and they may not win much, but they will be in it together. And they will endure it together, grow together, and I think with Jackson's mentality, it will help immensely. He IS a winner. He will leave it all on the floor like PJ did, but he has far more talent. So trading him for Irving with the chance of him leaving isn't worth it. We haven't drafted a top tier talent like that in a LONG time.

We are not on Irving's list of teams he wants to go to. The Cavs might not get as much as they want because of that list, but George didn't net anything because it is fairly clear he is a 1 year rental.

A 2 year rental does nothing for us if we give up a bunch of assets to do so? Like I said, it won't be pieces people think the Cavs want, for whatever reason they think they value Warren as a key piece that puts the trade over the top or whatever, but they will want unprotected picks or Jackson. Of course my post was before Jackson was apparently told he won't be traded so my post was under the intent it would take Jackson to get him, and of course if not him, it's going to take valuable picks.

I don't think our core is good enough for the playoffs, particularly given the west, with or without Kyrie for the next two years. I think we will be fun this year and get a little better if Bledsoe stays (or if we trade him and picks for Kyrie) or a little worse if we trade Bledsoe and start Ulis. We should get over 30 wins. The following year I think we would be closer to 40 if everyone developed. Then I think we take a step in year 3 and are firmly in the playoff mix...maybe lose in the first round, but we are there. Then we get even better and perhaps win a round and get to the 2nd round.....and that summer Anthony Davis is a FA.

We were spoiled for too long and people expect instant results, but it's not that easy..not with our roster now and how tough the west is. GS will dominate for at least another 3-4 years anyway. Not that I want to give up because of that, but I want to reload and build the proper way to maximize what we have and sustain it long term. I don't want to trade a bunch of assets for 2 year rentals for a few more wins.

[bwgood77]

I don't know if you listened to the podcast, but it didn't really sound like Windhorst was trying to make Kyrie sound bad. At least that's not what I took from it. I mean Lowe didn't think he could make those types of great passes, and Windhorst said that he can, but it's just not what he wants to do. I guess he could have just said he can, but that leaves out context if he's truly heard that. I mean it sounds like you think that's not second hand information and is just something he made up. I don't think that's the case.

But anyway, along with your "we know" comments, what we don't know is if he would stay after two years. I know Jackson may not seem like a lot to give up for superstar who hit the game winner in the finals, or to give up a couple of unprotected picks or whatever, but I just don't have a good feeling he'd stay, and I think it ultimately would set our team back in the long run if he did. It also wouldn't surprise me if Booker didn't like playing with him. Not that it should be our primary concern if we are getting a star since we don't have one.

I'm sure most everyone who reads this forum knows I don't like iso play style that much either, so of course that goes heavily into the equation for me of course, because it's not the brand of basketball I like to play. I much prefer the 90s Suns, the Nash Suns, even the Kidd Suns, the current Warriors, the Spurs as of late, etc...that type of style.

I had a listen but I wasn't convinced it was more than a backhanded compliment. If anything, it's a neutral comment, otherwise slightly negative. I don't think he got it from second hand information. As I mentioned, he's a voice for Lebron's camp, I wouldn't be surprised if he did talk to Lebron's camp about Irving's willingness to do this and that came up. I just don't think it's entirely unbiased.

If we're talking about including Jackson, that's a different discussion. I like what I see from Jackson and his potential is considerable so I'm extremely hesitant to part ways with him this early. But I certainly concsidered the risk of Irving walking for nothing and the price I'm willing to pay considering that risk is TJ. I have little attachment to those Miami picks nor Bledsoe.

I don't like iso play either. That's why I wasn't a fan of Rose and Westbrooks during their rise to stardom. I like my PG's who are pass first but in this day and age, all the top PG's can score at the highest level (Wall, Westbrook, Curry) and Irving fits that mold. He doesn't pass as much as those three but in a different system where he is running the show more, I don't see why he couldn't average close 7-8apg. He's still averaging 5.5apg over the past 3 seasons playing with a ball dominant Lebron.

Maybe, though Lowe said per 36 with LeBron off the floor his # of shots went through the roof to a historic level and he had only a slight uptick in assists. But yeah, if we are just talking TJ anyway, it's probably not worth arguing since that's not the type of price that will get a deal done.

[lilfishi22]

I think people know what he is. He is a premier one on one player and clutch player. Playing with LeBron has allowed him to have some big national moments. I think he would have some enormous scoring games with us. The ball would be in his hands a lot. He would probably lead the league in scoring. I think Booker's numbers and touches would go WAY down though. Which I suppose is fine, considering Irving is MUCH MUCH more efficient. Jackson would be a good player with Irving. Booker would possibly get more open looks and efficiency could improve, though he wouldn't score as much overall I don't think.

But I guess you could definitely classify him as a chucker...as mentioned by Lowe in his article, without LeBron, he shoots more shots per 36 than all but like 6 players in history...Kobe wasn't even one of them.

I guess the plus about him taking almost all of our shots is that he shoots better than anyone else so we, as a team, should be more efficient simply due to that.

I feel like you're saying this is who he is and he won't change. I totally agree with your assessment of Booker next to Irving and getting more efficient and having more open opportunities but his touches will go down. What I don't necessarily agree with is that he's going to be a chucker on this team just because he's had to be with the Cavs when Lebron sat. Without Lebron, he has to take shots and he has to score. That's not a surprise and it's not hard to explain why either. The rest of the Cavs team just aren't that good, even with Love. Love himself is inconsistent and tends to disappear under the spotlight which is where Irving shines. So this whole, he shoots more per36 than all by 6 players stat is overblown. It's a crazy stat and headline to see but what kind of sample size are we talking about? What kind of players is he playing with and what are his numbers like? How much of the Cavs lack of success without Lebron is because of how integral Lebron is to their offense.

I might have said it in the already but I think Irving is a very smart basketball player with excellent fundamentals. His defense might never be where we wish it would be but I think he's a smart enough player to fit in most NBA offense.

[bwgood77]

I think people know what he is. He is a premier one on one player and clutch player. Playing with LeBron has allowed him to have some big national moments. I think he would have some enormous scoring games with us. The ball would be in his hands a lot. He would probably lead the league in scoring. I think Booker's numbers and touches would go WAY down though. Which I suppose is fine, considering Irving is MUCH MUCH more efficient. Jackson would be a good player with Irving. Booker would possibly get more open looks and efficiency could improve, though he wouldn't score as much overall I don't think.

But I guess you could definitely classify him as a chucker...as mentioned by Lowe in his article, without LeBron, he shoots more shots per 36 than all but like 6 players in history...Kobe wasn't even one of them.

I guess the plus about him taking almost all of our shots is that he shoots better than anyone else so we, as a team, should be more efficient simply due to that.

I feel like you're saying this is who he is and he won't change. I totally agree with your assessment of Booker next to Irving and getting more efficient and having more open opportunities but his touches will go down. What I don't necessarily agree with is that he's going to be a chucker on this team just because he's had to be with the Cavs when Lebron sat. Without Lebron, he has to take shots and he has to score. That's not a surprise and it's not hard to explain why either. The rest of the Cavs team just aren't that good, even with Love. Love himself is inconsistent and tends to disappear under the spotlight which is where Irving shines. So this whole, he shoots more per36 than all by 6 players stat is overblown. It's a crazy stat and headline to see but what kind of sample size are we talking about? What kind of players is he playing with and what are his numbers like? How much of the Cavs lack of success without Lebron is because of how integral Lebron is to their offense.

I might have said it in the already but I think Irving is a very smart basketball player with excellent fundamentals. His defense might never be where we wish it would be but I think he's a smart enough player to fit in most NBA offense.

I'm not saying he's bad by any means. He's a great ball player who is very good at what he does. But the Cavs are set up right now with a ton of great shooters and LeBron gets those guy's going...I mean it's not LeBron doing everything. He has JR Smith, Korver, Love and others who can knock down 3s when they are open. Kyrie could easily pass to those guys as well. There isn't anything that makes me believe he will feel that he thinks Jackson (if we kept him), Bender, Chriss, Booker etc are more capable of knocking a shot down than the guys I've mentioned, who are all well established NBA shooters already.

[Qwigglez]

I think our team is tight knit and will have good chemistry with who we have right now, and they may not win much, but they will be in it together. And they will endure it together, grow together, and I think with Jackson's mentality, it will help immensely. He IS a winner. He will leave it all on the floor like PJ did, but he has far more talent. So trading him for Irving with the chance of him leaving isn't worth it. We haven't drafted a top tier talent like that in a LONG time.

We are not on Irving's list of teams he wants to go to. The Cavs might not get as much as they want because of that list, but George didn't net anything because it is fairly clear he is a 1 year rental.

A 2 year rental does nothing for us if we give up a bunch of assets to do so? Like I said, it won't be pieces people think the Cavs want, for whatever reason they think they value Warren as a key piece that puts the trade over the top or whatever, but they will want unprotected picks or Jackson. Of course my post was before Jackson was apparently told he won't be traded so my post was under the intent it would take Jackson to get him, and of course if not him, it's going to take valuable picks.

I don't think our core is good enough for the playoffs, particularly given the west, with or without Kyrie for the next two years. I think we will be fun this year and get a little better if Bledsoe stays (or if we trade him and picks for Kyrie) or a little worse if we trade Bledsoe and start Ulis. We should get over 30 wins. The following year I think we would be closer to 40 if everyone developed. Then I think we take a step in year 3 and are firmly in the playoff mix...maybe lose in the first round, but we are there. Then we get even better and perhaps win a round and get to the 2nd round.....and that summer Anthony Davis is a FA.

We were spoiled for too long and people expect instant results, but it's not that easy..not with our roster now and how tough the west is. GS will dominate for at least another 3-4 years anyway. Not that I want to give up because of that, but I want to reload and build the proper way to maximize what we have and sustain it long term. I don't want to trade a bunch of assets for 2 year rentals for a few more wins.

Being on Irving's list of teams isn't important since he doesn't have a no trade clause. The Pacers could have traded George a while ago but instead waited too long and got a craptastic package for him. I didn't hear anything of George wanting to go to the Thunder. Of the 4 teams listed on Irving's destinations none of them are able to give the kind of return Phoenix is able to.
If you think of it as a two year rental of course it's a bad investment. However, wouldn't Irving be able to get the supermax if he opts in in 19-20? That two year investment just turned to a 7 year investment. Also, our team could still stay a tight knit group if we traded for Irving, they could endure the season together, grow together, etc.

We wouldn't be good enough to make the playoffs yet we wouldn't be bad enough to get a blue chip prospect. How is that true? A lot of really good players have been drafted later: Booker, Greek Freak, Kawhi, Harris, Turner, Lavine, Nurkic. You've mentioned the Nuggets have a better core than us, and likely one of the two best cores in the league. They haven't tanked, and they are a team that you could even consider treadmilling since they've had 30-40 wins the past 4 seasons.

Your plan is just as flawed as trading for Kyrie because it requires Jackson, Bender, Chriss, Warren to all reach their full potential. The risk is still the same. I'm under the impression that Kyrie can help expedite their development because they learn how to win faster while still getting the required playing time.

And lastly, anyone that says Kyrie wasn't a winner before Lebron, I urge you to check out his roster in those years. Complete trash.

[bwgood77]

I think our team is tight knit and will have good chemistry with who we have right now, and they may not win much, but they will be in it together. And they will endure it together, grow together, and I think with Jackson's mentality, it will help immensely. He IS a winner. He will leave it all on the floor like PJ did, but he has far more talent. So trading him for Irving with the chance of him leaving isn't worth it. We haven't drafted a top tier talent like that in a LONG time.

We are not on Irving's list of teams he wants to go to. The Cavs might not get as much as they want because of that list, but George didn't net anything because it is fairly clear he is a 1 year rental.

A 2 year rental does nothing for us if we give up a bunch of assets to do so? Like I said, it won't be pieces people think the Cavs want, for whatever reason they think they value Warren as a key piece that puts the trade over the top or whatever, but they will want unprotected picks or Jackson. Of course my post was before Jackson was apparently told he won't be traded so my post was under the intent it would take Jackson to get him, and of course if not him, it's going to take valuable picks.

I don't think our core is good enough for the playoffs, particularly given the west, with or without Kyrie for the next two years. I think we will be fun this year and get a little better if Bledsoe stays (or if we trade him and picks for Kyrie) or a little worse if we trade Bledsoe and start Ulis. We should get over 30 wins. The following year I think we would be closer to 40 if everyone developed. Then I think we take a step in year 3 and are firmly in the playoff mix...maybe lose in the first round, but we are there. Then we get even better and perhaps win a round and get to the 2nd round.....and that summer Anthony Davis is a FA.

We were spoiled for too long and people expect instant results, but it's not that easy..not with our roster now and how tough the west is. GS will dominate for at least another 3-4 years anyway. Not that I want to give up because of that, but I want to reload and build the proper way to maximize what we have and sustain it long term. I don't want to trade a bunch of assets for 2 year rentals for a few more wins.

Being on Irving's list of teams isn't important since he doesn't have a no trade clause. The Pacers could have traded George a while ago but instead waited too long and got a craptastic package for him. I didn't hear anything of George wanting to go to the Thunder. Of the 4 teams listed on Irving's destinations none of them are able to give the kind of return Phoenix is able to.
If you think of it as a two year rental of course it's a bad investment. However, wouldn't Irving be able to get the supermax if he opts in in 19-20? That two year investment just turned to a 7 year investment. Also, our team could still stay a tight knit group if we traded for Irving, they could endure the season together, grow together, etc.

We wouldn't be good enough to make the playoffs yet we wouldn't be bad enough to get a blue chip prospect. How is that true? A lot of really good players have been drafted later: Booker, Greek Freak, Kawhi, Harris, Turner, Lavine, Nurkic. You've mentioned the Nuggets have a better core than us, and likely one of the two best cores in the league. They haven't tanked, and they are a team that you could even consider treadmilling since they've had 30-40 wins the past 4 seasons.

Your plan is just as flawed as trading for Kyrie because it requires Jackson, Bender, Chriss, Warren to all reach their full potential. The risk is still the same. I'm under the impression that Kyrie can help expedite their development because they learn how to win faster while still getting the required playing time.

And lastly, anyone that says Kyrie wasn't a winner before Lebron, I urge you to check out his roster in those years. Complete trash.

Yes we could offer him the supermax I think depending on if he makes all nba or all star teams. With Irving it would be best to play him with guys like Jackson, Warren, Bender and one of our centers who don't need the ball but play defense or can score without having the ball much and also move the ball when needed. I don't think you can offer the super max to two players, and Booker might not deserve one, but he might want one. I think the one guy you want to play with Irving, it is Jackson, but it likely takes him to get him, and if not, a ton of other assets...not stuff like Warren or Chriss and a Miami pick. George didn't net much because everyone knows he goes to LA. The Bulls got decent assets if they like Dunn, because they got a 5th overall pick, a 7th overall pick in a stacked draft and LaVine, who is underrated and launches 3s at a high % on high volume. Plus he is likely to stay in Minnesota as he loves Thibs. Those situations are night and day compared to ours with Kyrie.

[AtheJ415]

Kyrie fits our age grouping. As far as ideal stars for us who are available right now or in the next year, he is ideal in age and position. The problem with him is that he is generally overrated, and seems to have a problem with people while thinking he is still somehow underrated.

I don't want any PG who wants to be Kobe. He does.

I also don't want any point guard who is something like top 5 all time in shots per game and is still complaining about his role. He does.

Finally, I don't want somebody who has performed like Kyrie has but still thinks he is destined for the super max, while preferring to be the #1 guy on a bad team. That means if one of our younger players develops to the point of threatening to be the #1 option, we would likely have chemistry issues for a guy we are paying near or over $40 mil a year.

If we trade for Kyrie, so long as Booker, Jackson, Bender, Chriss, our #1 over any of the next 3 years unless lottery-protected, and Miami's unprotected 2020 pick, are not included, I will be excited and completely understand it. If we include next year's Miami I would be able to live with it. If we include any of the others though I will be very concerned.

The simple truth in all of this is that Bledsoe is a more complete player than Kyrie. Kyrie is still better, but Bled is a better fit for Cleveland. Given the scenario Kyrie put them in, we should not be trading much more than Bled to get him. Any of our core (Booker, Jackson, Bender, Chriss, our #1's, Miami's unprotected, Warren) shouldn't be needed to get him. If they are, then we should be just trading Bledsoe for young guys as the 3rd team, picks, or additional cap relief (dumping Chandler, for instance).

Remember, getting Kyrie isn't as simple as the guys traded. If we keep him we will have to give him a giant deal that will preclude us from offering that to another player. That opportunity cost is real.

[lilfishi22]

I'm not saying he's bad by any means. He's a great ball player who is very good at what he does. But the Cavs are set up right now with a ton of great shooters and LeBron gets those guy's going...I mean it's not LeBron doing everything. He has JR Smith, Korver, Love and others who can knock down 3s when they are open. Kyrie could easily pass to those guys as well. There isn't anything that makes me believe he will feel that he thinks Jackson (if we kept him), Bender, Chriss, Booker etc are more capable of knocking a shot down than the guys I've mentioned, who are all well established NBA shooters already.

They just play a different style of basketball. Kyrie might not be able to make the same passes and reads Lebron make with regularity. A lot of the passes Lebron make, only elite passers like CP3 could make. Let's not forget that while Kyrie is a good passer, we're comparing him to one of the best passers of all time (currently #11 on all time assist list). It's not his game to always be looking and setting up shooters around him.

On our team, he will have to look to score a bit more because most of our guys aren't necessarily ready to contribute. But that's no different to the last few seasons with Bledsoe. We weren't expecting Bledsoe to become Steve Nash and start dishing out assists and that's OK. I don't think we need to be worried about Booker; he's going to get his shots. If Kyrie can adjust his game to play next to a ball dominant Lebron, he can adjust to play next to a less ball dominant Booker.

[thamadkant]

The Cavs are so bad when Lebron is on the bench because the whole system and coaching relies on Lebron.

When he's off, the team is just playing defense and the offense is reliant on bad X and Os and Irving going isolation.



Irving is a good 3pt shooter, an elite isolation player, a great slasher and penetrator....


Swapping Bledsoe for Irving is a win for the Suns. Adding Warren and a pick, makes it even... Cavs can pay Warren when Lebron leaves and Warren gets to start hopefully.


If McD includes Jackson... then he deserves to be fired. Jackson will be a high impact player, especially today where perimeter is the source of offense and defense.



Kyrie walking is possible, because Suns are in the pacific division and western conference and the team is NOT ready to battle it out with the Warriors and other elite teams. That is the only reason not to trade for him... without atleast planning to sign another star next FA season.

[Damkac]

"Point-guards" that dribble and shot way too much and pass way too little are my least favorite type of players. Don't want Irving.

[Qwigglez]

Irving has a better TOV% than Steph Curry and a better assist to turnover ratio. Would you guys argue that you wouldn't want a 25 year old Steph Curry because he shoots too much?