Why trading for Kyrie could cost McD his job

[lilfishi22]

In a few years Booker is likely going to be just as good of a scorer so I don't see why we need Kyrie. Offense isn't going to be a problem for us, defense is and Kyrie is a horrific defender. I'd rather be the third team and trade Bledsoe for Frank Ntilikina and Shumpert and maybe something like a second rd pick. Let the Knicks be a treadmill team with Kyrie as their best player. Cavs can continue to compete with Bledsoe and

I'd say something like this:

Cavs get:
Melo and Bledsoe

Knicks get:
Irving, JR Smith and Channing Frye and future 1st from Cavs

Suns get:
Ntilikina, Shumpert and 2nd rounder from Knicks Melo.

Let's cross that bridge when we get there. If Booker becomes as good as Kyrie offensively, that's a huge positive but that should happen whether we have Kyrie or not so that's not a reason to not trade for Kyrie.

Maybe, but I definitely wouldn't bank on it. Of course we'll never know if he would have progressed more or less or the same either way.

What I'm saying is, if Booker is as good as advertised, then it shouldn't matter whether there's another great scorer next to him or not. If he can't hack it next to a better passer and offensive juggernaut in Kyrie, then we at least have two seasons to evaluate whether Booker really is that good. Or whether Kyrie is hampering Booker's potential.

Either way, Kyrie on a 2 year deal is pretty much ideal. We have time to figure out whether he's worth a max deal and we don't need to negotiate any new deals with him for another 2 seasons.

[bwgood77]

Let's cross that bridge when we get there. If Booker becomes as good as Kyrie offensively, that's a huge positive but that should happen whether we have Kyrie or not so that's not a reason to not trade for Kyrie.

Maybe, but I definitely wouldn't bank on it. Of course we'll never know if he would have progressed more or less or the same either way.

What I'm saying is, if Booker is as good as advertised, then it shouldn't matter whether there's another great scorer next to him or not. If he can't hack it next to a better passer and offensive juggernaut in Kyrie, then we at least have two seasons to evaluate whether Booker really is that good. Or whether Kyrie is hampering Booker's potential.

Either way, Kyrie on a 2 year deal is pretty much ideal. We have time to figure out whether he's worth a max deal and we don't need to negotiate any new deals with him for another 2 seasons.

With Kyrie, or Booker, or both?

[lilfishi22]

Maybe, but I definitely wouldn't bank on it. Of course we'll never know if he would have progressed more or less or the same either way.

What I'm saying is, if Booker is as good as advertised, then it shouldn't matter whether there's another great scorer next to him or not. If he can't hack it next to a better passer and offensive juggernaut in Kyrie, then we at least have two seasons to evaluate whether Booker really is that good. Or whether Kyrie is hampering Booker's potential.

Either way, Kyrie on a 2 year deal is pretty much ideal. We have time to figure out whether he's worth a max deal and we don't need to negotiate any new deals with him for another 2 seasons.

With Kyrie, or Booker, or both?

Both.

[Qwigglez]

Kyrie is a dynamic offensive player but we are never going to come close to contending with Booker and Kyrie as our starting backcourt. Sure, they'd probably score 50-60 a game but they'd give up just as much on defense. The Cavs are not a good team when Kyrie is playing and Lebron isn't and it's largely because the guy makes Nash look like an All-NBA defender.

I've mentioned before but Lillard/McCollum is a terrible backcourt defense yet they still made the playoffs. Allen Crabbe wasn't a good defender, Evan Turner is average at best. We'd at least have the luxury of a Josh Jackson with the help defense and hopefully Bender too. Maybe Booker works on his defense this summer too.

I also think you are reaching with the comment of Kyrie being so bad defensively he makes Nash look good.

[bwgood77]

What I'm saying is, if Booker is as good as advertised, then it shouldn't matter whether there's another great scorer next to him or not. If he can't hack it next to a better passer and offensive juggernaut in Kyrie, then we at least have two seasons to evaluate whether Booker really is that good. Or whether Kyrie is hampering Booker's potential.

Either way, Kyrie on a 2 year deal is pretty much ideal. We have time to figure out whether he's worth a max deal and we don't need to negotiate any new deals with him for another 2 seasons.

With Kyrie, or Booker, or both?

Both.

You think there is any chance they won't like playing together? Or the other teammates won't like him? I remember when Josh Jackson yelled to the sideline when Mike James was taking a lot of shots in summer league (but not nearly Kyrie like) and yelled "He wants the **** ball!" Or, "He wants the **** shots!" or whatever he said. They didn't seem too happy.

I guess my biggest fear is that we lose the unity our team seems to have and people become disgruntled once again and then we find ourselves in a quandary because we just gave up assets and it landed us in that situation.

If the team works well with him, and he wants to stay, and everyone is involved, then it's worth trading a reasonable package for him. I just feel there are a lot of risks.



Though none of our players right now are sure things. People love Book, but so far he's only been a high volume inefficient scorer, and then the rest of our core have barely played in the nba and have less than 70-80 starts, or none at all. It's rare that you can get a star, but he's just not the type of star I'd like.

I didn't really want Blake, but I probably would have preferred him since he is such a great passer and seems to like to pass. But perhaps as some have argued, Kyrie will suddenly like to pass for the first time in his career.

[lilfishi22]

I'll be pissed if we include Jackson in a trade for Kyrie. Kyrie is a dynamic offensive player but we are never going to come close to contending with Booker and Kyrie as our starting backcourt. Sure, they'd probably score 50-60 a game but they'd give up just as much on defense. The Cavs are not a good team when Kyrie is playing and Lebron isn't and it's largely because the guy makes Nash look like an All-NBA defender.

Or perhaps when Lebron is sitting, Cavs lose arguably one of the top 10 NBA players of all time.

[Waylay13]

I'll be pissed if we include Jackson in a trade for Kyrie. Kyrie is a dynamic offensive player but we are never going to come close to contending with Booker and Kyrie as our starting backcourt. Sure, they'd probably score 50-60 a game but they'd give up just as much on defense. The Cavs are not a good team when Kyrie is playing and Lebron isn't and it's largely because the guy makes Nash look like an All-NBA defender.

Or perhaps when Lebron is sitting, Cavs lose arguably one of the top 10 NBA players of all time.


https://www.google.com.au/search?tbm=isch&q=hmm+gif&chips=q:hmm+gif,g_2:interesting&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj71dOtuqjVAhWIoZQKHW1iBPYQ4lYIKigA&biw=1156&bih=532&dpr=1.5#imgrc=MfY1nKtdFgG4NM:

Or perhaps while being an skilled scorer he doesnt involve his teammates enough and it is hard to win a game of 5 on 1. This is the problem with score first point guard they dont involve their teammates and become much easier to defend against.

[DirtyDez]

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.

Kyrie and Booker are FA's the same summer. What would their combined maxes be? A quarter billion??

[lilfishi22]

Spoiler:

With Kyrie, or Booker, or both?

Both.

You think there is any chance they won't like playing together? Or the other teammates won't like him? I remember when Josh Jackson yelled to the sideline when Mike James was taking a lot of shots in summer league (but not nearly Kyrie like) and yelled "He wants the **** ball!" Or, "He wants the **** shots!" or whatever he said. They didn't seem too happy.

I guess my biggest fear is that we lose the unity our team seems to have and people become disgruntled once again and then we find ourselves in a quandary because we just gave up assets and it landed us in that situation.

If the team works well with him, and he wants to stay, and everyone is involved, then it's worth trading a reasonable package for him. I just feel there are a lot of risks.



Though none of our players right now are sure things. People love Book, but so far he's only been a high volume inefficient scorer, and then the rest of our core have barely played in the nba and have less than 70-80 starts, or none at all. It's rare that you can get a star, but he's just not the type of star I'd like.

I didn't really want Blake, but I probably would have preferred him since he is such a great passer and seems to like to pass. But perhaps as some have argued, Kyrie will suddenly like to pass for the first time in his career.

In my mind, I see them playing very well together. Like Lilliard/McCollum. Both guys are good to excellent passers and more importantly both are fantastic catch and shoot players, giving them the ability to play off each other. The defense thing is an issue but that's if we assume Booker will forever be a terrible defender and JJ won't prove he's an elite defender himself. If both guys show they can play D, then I'm not at all concerned with Kyrie's defense.

There are risk in most trades and the risk of him not doing well and/or leaving is priced into what we give up. As I mentioned, JJ and Booker are the only two guys I have in the untradeable bucket because if Kyrie leaves or doesn't work out, I'm still not devastated with having a young JJ and Booker to move forward with. Of course, other posters have different opinions on what they consider fair value.

[lilfishi22]

Or perhaps while being an skilled scorer he doesnt involve his teammates enough and it is hard to win a game of 5 on 1. This is the problem with score first point guard they dont involve their teammates and become much easier to defend against.

So how is that different to Bledsoe now? Both guys are near identical in AST%.

[Waylay13]

Or perhaps while being an skilled scorer he doesnt involve his teammates enough and it is hard to win a game of 5 on 1. This is the problem with score first point guard they dont involve their teammates and become much easier to defend against.

So how is that different to Bledsoe now? Both guys are near identical in AST%.

That is the problem we already have a no pass point guard that isnt getting us over the hump and he even plays defense; at least with Bledsoe we are not giving up a bunch of valuable resources to get him. If there was a young Steve Nash or Stockton that we could get I would be all in except for Booker and JJ but Kyrie has never averaged more than 6.1 assist in his career including college. I am sick of blackhole combo guards that claim to be points. The only reason Kyrie works in Cleveland is because they have a Lebron who they run the offense through but Kyrie doesnt want that he wants to be "the man" and I am not willing to give up the farm for him and maybe have him chance Booker out of town because Kyrie thinks he can play 1 on 5 street ball.

[bwgood77]

I'll be pissed if we include Jackson in a trade for Kyrie. Kyrie is a dynamic offensive player but we are never going to come close to contending with Booker and Kyrie as our starting backcourt. Sure, they'd probably score 50-60 a game but they'd give up just as much on defense. The Cavs are not a good team when Kyrie is playing and Lebron isn't and it's largely because the guy makes Nash look like an All-NBA defender.

Or perhaps when Lebron is sitting, Cavs lose arguably one of the top 10 NBA players of all time.

They still have Kyrie and Love and shooters and a rebounder/rim protector. They shouldn't be losing all those games. Something doesn't add up if those guys are really all star type talents.

[bwgood77]

Or perhaps while being an skilled scorer he doesnt involve his teammates enough and it is hard to win a game of 5 on 1. This is the problem with score first point guard they dont involve their teammates and become much easier to defend against.

So how is that different to Bledsoe now? Both guys are near identical in AST%.

I think many are not that happy watching him dribble out the shot clock and shoot a 3 as everyone watches either. But if it's close to a straight up trade, or him and Dudley, or add the 18 Miami pick, fine, I'd give it a shot.

[lilfishi22]

Or perhaps while being an skilled scorer he doesnt involve his teammates enough and it is hard to win a game of 5 on 1. This is the problem with score first point guard they dont involve their teammates and become much easier to defend against.

So how is that different to Bledsoe now? Both guys are near identical in AST%.

I think many are not that happy watching him dribble out the shot clock and shoot a 3 as everyone watches either. But if it's close to a straight up trade, or him and Dudley, or add the 18 Miami pick, fine, I'd give it a shot.

Or perhaps while being an skilled scorer he doesnt involve his teammates enough and it is hard to win a game of 5 on 1. This is the problem with score first point guard they dont involve their teammates and become much easier to defend against.

So how is that different to Bledsoe now? Both guys are near identical in AST%.

That is the problem we already have a no pass point guard that isnt getting us over the hump and he even plays defense; at least with Bledsoe we are not giving up a bunch of valuable resources to get him. If there was a young Steve Nash or Stockton that we could get I would be all in except for Booker and JJ but Kyrie has never averaged more than 6.1 assist in his career including college. I am sick of blackhole combo guards that claim to be points. The only reason Kyrie works in Cleveland is because they have a Lebron who they run the offense through but Kyrie doesnt want that he wants to be "the man" and I am not willing to give up the farm for him and maybe have him chance Booker out of town because Kyrie thinks he can play 1 on 5 street ball.

I love me a PG who is looking to set up plays and distribute. I've said it again and again, Nash is my favourite player because he plays my favourite brand of basketball. But the days of the pass first PG being the best PG in the league appears to be over. There just aren't that many elite level PG's who can do all that and those who can, like you said, aren't available.

Kyrie has never averaged more than 6.1 assist in his career and he's never going to be a Chris Paul/John Wall type of natural passer. That's just a fact. But that doesn't mean he's averse to passing. Let's remind ourselves that the Cleveland Cavalebron's was built with Lebron being the centrepiece, the engine that runs the whole thing. Irving and Love, just plays off that as complementary pieces. When you take Lebron away from that equation, people don't get the same opportunities, no one can make the passes Lebron makes on the regular and their offense becomes a jumbled mess with everyone looking at Love and Kyrie to get scoring opportunities.

Kyrie running Booker out of town? That's a possibility but where do you put the chances of that happening? 60%? 80%? 20? What about the possibility that JJ's temperament becomes a negative which might run Booker out? That's a possibility too. Are we to make assumptions that Booker can't play with Kyrie? The way I see it, they don't play the same position and both players can play off the ball. We're not talking about a three-PG lineup where they fight for minutes.

[bwgood77]

So how is that different to Bledsoe now? Both guys are near identical in AST%.

I think many are not that happy watching him dribble out the shot clock and shoot a 3 as everyone watches either. But if it's close to a straight up trade, or him and Dudley, or add the 18 Miami pick, fine, I'd give it a shot.

So how is that different to Bledsoe now? Both guys are near identical in AST%.

That is the problem we already have a no pass point guard that isnt getting us over the hump and he even plays defense; at least with Bledsoe we are not giving up a bunch of valuable resources to get him. If there was a young Steve Nash or Stockton that we could get I would be all in except for Booker and JJ but Kyrie has never averaged more than 6.1 assist in his career including college. I am sick of blackhole combo guards that claim to be points. The only reason Kyrie works in Cleveland is because they have a Lebron who they run the offense through but Kyrie doesnt want that he wants to be "the man" and I am not willing to give up the farm for him and maybe have him chance Booker out of town because Kyrie thinks he can play 1 on 5 street ball.

I love me a PG who is looking to set up plays and distribute. I've said it again and again, Nash is my favourite player because he plays my favourite brand of basketball. But the days of the pass first PG being the best PG in the league appears to be over. There just aren't that many elite level PG's who can do all that and those who can, like you said, aren't available.

Kyrie has never averaged more than 6.1 assist in his career and he's never going to be a Chris Paul/John Wall type of natural passer. That's just a fact. But that doesn't mean he's averse to passing. Let's remind ourselves that the Cleveland Cavalebron's was built with Lebron being the centrepiece, the engine that runs the whole thing. Irving and Love, just plays off that as complementary pieces. When you take Lebron away from that equation, people don't get the same opportunities, no one can make the passes Lebron makes on the regular and their offense becomes a jumbled mess with everyone looking at Love and Kyrie to get scoring opportunities.

Kyrie running Booker out of town? That's a possibility but where do you put the chances of that happening? 60%? 80%? 20? What about the possibility that JJ's temperament becomes a negative which might run Booker out? That's a possibility too. Are we to make assumptions that Booker can't play with Kyrie? The way I see it, they don't play the same position and both players can play off the ball. We're not talking about a three-PG lineup where they fight for minutes.

Like I said, if it's a reasonable offer like I mentioned just for Bledsoe, Dudley and the Miami pick fine. I don't want to include a guy like Warren or Bender, or even Chriss or Jackson. But it sounds like Jackson is off the table. We control all those guys for 5-8 years or so...we would control Kyrie for 2, and we are not on the list of teams he wants to play for. That doesn't concern you? A guy gives a list and you're not a team he wants to play for and you trade for him? I won't get into the business of imagining he wants to play for us because he followed one of our players on instagram or something.

[lilfishi22]

Like I said, if it's a reasonable offer like I mentioned just for Bledsoe, Dudley and the Miami pick fine. I don't want to include a guy like Warren or Bender, or even Chriss or Jackson. But it sounds like Jackson is off the table. We control all those guys for 5-8 years or so...we would control Kyrie for 2, and we are not on the list of teams he wants to play for. That doesn't concern you? A guy gives a list and you're not a team he wants to play for and you trade for him? I won't get into the business of imagining he wants to play for us because he followed one of our players on instagram or something.

It's a concern. I fully recognise he's only contractually obligated to play for us for 2 seasons. But as I've said, that risk is priced into what we give up. If we're talking about a Kyrie that's locked in for 4-5 years at his current deal, I'd throw a lot more at him. But he's only on the books for 2 seasons and Phoenix not being a team he named (didn't say he doesn't want to play for us) is a risk which is why I wouldn't throw everything and the kitchen sink to get him.

[bwgood77]

Like I said, if it's a reasonable offer like I mentioned just for Bledsoe, Dudley and the Miami pick fine. I don't want to include a guy like Warren or Bender, or even Chriss or Jackson. But it sounds like Jackson is off the table. We control all those guys for 5-8 years or so...we would control Kyrie for 2, and we are not on the list of teams he wants to play for. That doesn't concern you? A guy gives a list and you're not a team he wants to play for and you trade for him? I won't get into the business of imagining he wants to play for us because he followed one of our players on instagram or something.

It's a concern. I fully recognise he's only contractually obligated to play for us for 2 seasons. But as I've said, that risk is priced into what we give up. If we're talking about a Kyrie that's locked in for 4-5 years at his current deal, I'd throw a lot more at him. But he's only on the books for 2 seasons and Phoenix not being a team he named (didn't say he doesn't want to play for us) is a risk which is why I wouldn't throw everything and the kitchen sink to get him.

But now in the other thread you are saying you would give up both Miami picks, and 2 of Chriss/Bender/Warren for him, along with Bledsoe. That's your price for a potential two year rental? I know I'm higher on the young guys than most, but wow.

[lilfishi22]

Like I said, if it's a reasonable offer like I mentioned just for Bledsoe, Dudley and the Miami pick fine. I don't want to include a guy like Warren or Bender, or even Chriss or Jackson. But it sounds like Jackson is off the table. We control all those guys for 5-8 years or so...we would control Kyrie for 2, and we are not on the list of teams he wants to play for. That doesn't concern you? A guy gives a list and you're not a team he wants to play for and you trade for him? I won't get into the business of imagining he wants to play for us because he followed one of our players on instagram or something.

It's a concern. I fully recognise he's only contractually obligated to play for us for 2 seasons. But as I've said, that risk is priced into what we give up. If we're talking about a Kyrie that's locked in for 4-5 years at his current deal, I'd throw a lot more at him. But he's only on the books for 2 seasons and Phoenix not being a team he named (didn't say he doesn't want to play for us) is a risk which is why I wouldn't throw everything and the kitchen sink to get him.

But now in the other thread you are saying you would give up both Miami picks, and 2 of Chriss/Bender/Warren for him, along with Bledsoe. That's your price for a potential two year rental? I know I'm higher on the young guys than most, but wow.

Miami pick, not picks just to clarify.

Regarding Bender and Chriss, I always felt they were an experiment and we would only keep one of the two long term. Both guys have shown promise but still yet to prove much. I always said if push came to shove, I'd include Chriss or Bender. Clearly they aren't interested in either so it's a moot point.

[bwgood77]

It's a concern. I fully recognise he's only contractually obligated to play for us for 2 seasons. But as I've said, that risk is priced into what we give up. If we're talking about a Kyrie that's locked in for 4-5 years at his current deal, I'd throw a lot more at him. But he's only on the books for 2 seasons and Phoenix not being a team he named (didn't say he doesn't want to play for us) is a risk which is why I wouldn't throw everything and the kitchen sink to get him.

But now in the other thread you are saying you would give up both Miami picks, and 2 of Chriss/Bender/Warren for him, along with Bledsoe. That's your price for a potential two year rental? I know I'm higher on the young guys than most, but wow.

Miami pick, not picks just to clarify.

Regarding Bender and Chriss, I always felt they were an experiment and we would only keep one of the two long term. Both guys have shown promise but still yet to prove much. I always said if push came to shove, I'd include Chriss or Bender. Clearly they aren't interested in either so it's a moot point.

Well I wouldn't put too much stock in Gambo, Bickley or even what Cleveland may have said if it's true. They might be scoffing at Chriss and Bender to still try and get more but are secretly intrigued by one or both and will relent at some point and say..ok, we will take "_________" and these picks or whatever.

[AtheJ415]

Or perhaps while being an skilled scorer he doesnt involve his teammates enough and it is hard to win a game of 5 on 1. This is the problem with score first point guard they dont involve their teammates and become much easier to defend against.

So how is that different to Bledsoe now? Both guys are near identical in AST%.

Bled is surrounded by young, horrible shooters. Irving is very much not. Also, Bled is another world defensively to Kyrie. That matters. And is the better athlete. Kyrie is better, but it is by maybe a late 1st rounder. Kyrie never makes all nba without Bron.