Why trading for Kyrie could cost McD his job

[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%.

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.

Today's NBA is not made for players like Kyrie to ultimately be successful. The day of the iso game from your top dog is over, if you plan on competing for a championship. Luckily for Kyrie, he can still play like this and not play defense (not sure if he can or just doesn't) because he plays with one of the two best players ever who gets his teammates involved and is a monster on offense and defense.

On a team like Phoenix, his weaknesses will be amplified, and people will be in awe of his great dribbling moves, drives and crazy shots, but ultimately who cares about that stuff? We're not the Harlem Globetrotters. We need to play team ball. I grew up watching KJ, then Kidd, then Nash, and hated players like Iverson, Kobe, etc, but at least those latter two played in an era where that worked a bit better.

The teams now with ball movement and space are so much superior. I don't think we'd be worse right now with Kyrie, but I fear it might limit us from being much much better 5 years from now, or even 3 years from now. Or hell, we might even be better as is 2 years from now without him because our team is tightly knit and loves playing together...and you never know how a departure of some of the group and a guy coming in saying (or expecting) "I'm your top dog"

Of course, Barkley came in and basically flat out said that, which I didn't like...or I think he said "I'm Mr. Franchise and KJ is Jr Franchise" Of course that team had already been to two WCF.

[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%.

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.

Kyrie's job when Lebron sits is to score and keep them in the game. And again, we're talking about a small sample size. Lebron has only been off something like 27 games in the last 3 seasons with the Cavs. Lebron also averaged nearly 38mpg last season. I don't put it ALL on Kyrie because the team is so unbalanced without a Lebron level player running the show.

With regards to defense at the PG position, it's become less and less important over the years with fewer great defensive PG's and vastly more PG's with great offense. It's great that Bledsoe can often holds his own but PG defense is less important than it's ever been in NBA history.

[Worst_to_First]

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 Melo.

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

Given cap issues, for this trade to work we would have to send Courtney Lee to the Cavs.

[thamadkant]

the trade should be dead if Jackson is included.

otherwise Bledsoe, Warren and some picks.... its worth a shot.

[Waylay13]

Kyrie's job when Lebron sits is to score and keep them in the game. And again, we're talking about a small sample size. Lebron has only been off something like 27 games in the last 3 seasons with the Cavs. Lebron also averaged nearly 38mpg last season. I don't put it ALL on Kyrie because the team is so unbalanced without a Lebron level player running the show.

Yes Kyrie does such a good job of keeping it going that they are -130 with Lebron the bench and him on the court; to top this off more than half the these minutes they also have Love on the floor. Kyrie is a true blackhole as a point guard and the offense dies when the he runs the offense.

[Biff]

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.

Top 5*.

I'm not saying that Lebron sitting shouldn't have any effect on the Cavs but the problem is that not only are the Cavs worse on defense, their offense also becomes absolute garbage. If Irving is so good on offense, why are the Cavs so bad when he's running the show?

This was taken from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2017/07/25/the-one-red-flag-a-team-trading-for-kyrie-irving-needs-to-know/

Before James’s return in 2014, the Cavaliers were outscored by at least 5.1 net points per 100 possessions with Irving on the court, roughly the same production we expect from a team that wins 25 to 27 games a season. In 2014-15 Cleveland had a net rating of plus-0.9 with Irving on the court and James on the bench. The next season that declined to minus-0.5 and then again to minus-8 in 2016-17, a mark lower than the 26-win Los Angeles Lakers (minus-7.2 net rating) last season

When James sits out games, the Cavs winning percentage would place them with some of the worst teams in the league. If Irving is good, why can't he at least keep them close to a .500 team? Because Irving is one of the most overrated players in the NBA. I thought it was absolutely insane that people thought he was better than Curry after the Cavs won the finals a year ago. Dude is garbage without James and I don't want him on the Suns at all. He can put points on the board but he does not make those around him better and he's an atrocious defender. We will never come close to being a contender with him on our team.

[rsavaj]

Advanced stats paint Kyrie as a top 20 player on offense and a bottom 50 player on defense.

Not 100% sure he's a top 20 player on-balance. I think Bledsoe is roughly comparable to him, but his value is severely diminished by his knees. TJ doesn't project to be a top 20 player. That 2018 MIA pick is 1-7 protected, so you're looking at late lotto/mid teens.

Not really sure how to gauge Kyrie's value TBH

[ImNotMcDiSwear]

Advanced stats paint Kyrie as a top 20 player on offense and a bottom 50 player on defense.

Not 100% sure he's a top 20 player on-balance. I think Bledsoe is roughly comparable to him, but his value is severely diminished by his knees. TJ doesn't project to be a top 20 player. That 2018 MIA pick is 1-7 protected, so you're looking at late lotto/mid teens.

Not really sure how to gauge Kyrie's value TBH

Kyrie's injury history isn't anything to laugh off, either.

I get why adding Kyrie *on the cheap* wouldn't be a bad move. One more year on his contract than Bled, three years younger.

But once you start talking about giving up real assets, things get dicey fast. As much as I trust this FO when it comes to the draft, I don't think there's much reason to trust their NBA scouting. McD correctly identified Bled and IT as being undervalued. But then BK was a huge whiff. And then they dramatically underestimated IT despite the fact that he was playing in their own gym. Chandler hasn't looked like a coup. LaMarcus would not have been a boon, in hindsight.

So this FO going after another shiny big name player - a shoot-first, defense-last one at that - is worrisome. He's basically the opposite of the kind of player we all thought the FO was hoping to get in the draft - Lonzo Ball, pass first point guard. A guy like that makes sense, given that we have more scorers than playmakers. Kyrie, though?

Don't get me wrong; I understand the appeal. If Kyrie came here, committed to the team, AND WE DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY A BIG PRICE TO BRING HIM IN (read: Ulis, Booker, Jackson, Bender, Warren), then it could be a coup. You could use Kyrie/Booker/Jackson as a lure for the final piece this team really needs - and that's a center. Marc Gasol, Deandre Jordan, Rudy Gobert... add one of those guys to a team that is clicking, and you may get yourself in the conversation.

But all that would still be a couple years down the line. Irving would be up for his second extension, and at the same time, you have to worry about the injuries. And Ulis, despite his lack of size, could end up the better player in terms of +/-. What if he wants to start? Do you let him go? He won't be RFA.

In addition to those considerations, there's the fact that the biggest hole on the roster - a slam dunking, rim protecting center - is most obviously and easily filled by a high 2018 draft pick. We're going to win fewer games than our talent merits this season in any case, due to the strength of the conference. You could embrace it, maintain all of your liquid assets, carry things forward a year, grab the last pillar in this rebuild, and then, when all's said and done, still be able to add a major piece via trade or free agency. That's the safer route, and it's the route I think is more likely to win a championship.

So I return to my original point. You lose opportunity cost with Kyrie, as well as, I'm assuming, liquid assets (rookie contracts, draft picks). But talent is talent. So you'd add him for nothing, clearly. And you'd deal Bled for him straight up. But how much more should we be willing to pay, when it is easily foreseeable how his acquisition could actually move us farther from the one goal we share, which is winning a championship?

Personally, I would continue to prioritize the development of our youth. ONE MORE YEAR. SUCK FOR ONE MORE YEAR. Add that last piece in next year's draft, then go ahead. Add your superstars. Sign your big free agents. Market the **** out of this squad and go for it. But right now? I say no. HOLD.

[bigfoot]

I'm convinced Irving doesn't cut it as an all-star in the Western Conference (or barely if he is lucky)

In the notoriously weak Eastern Conference he managed two all-star nods on losing teams in his second and third year. Hell our near all-star Knight was playing in the east and was considered as a possible all-star selection during that time.

Really the guard competition is very weak with Wade, Irving, Holiday, Wall, Joe Johnson, DeRozan, Lowry, Walker, Thomas, Teague, and Rondo earning spots during Irvings four all-star appearances.

Compare that to the West with Paul, Bryant, Westbrook, Parker, Harden, Curry, Lillard, and Thompson making regular appearances in over that time. Honestly, Irving might be as good as Lillard ... maybe ... his advanced stats are skewed because he has been playing with Lebron. His true shooting percentage went up a decent clip. Irving is no where near Paul, Westbrook, Harden, or Curry.

What would we be willing to give up for Lillard?
What would we be willing to give up for Thompson?
Is Irving better than either of those players?

One thing for sure ... we should not sell the farm to get Irvning. Bledsoe's offense would thrive being next to Lebron. He defense is way better than Irving. To me they are nearly the same player statistically. Bledsoe for Irving and a 1st round pick is the best I would offer. Otherwise just walk away from the table McD.

[AtheJ415]

Advanced stats paint Kyrie as a top 20 player on offense and a bottom 50 player on defense.

Not 100% sure he's a top 20 player on-balance. I think Bledsoe is roughly comparable to him, but his value is severely diminished by his knees. TJ doesn't project to be a top 20 player. That 2018 MIA pick is 1-7 protected, so you're looking at late lotto/mid teens.

Not really sure how to gauge Kyrie's value TBH

Kyrie's injury history isn't anything to laugh off, either.

I get why adding Kyrie *on the cheap* wouldn't be a bad move. One more year on his contract than Bled, three years younger.

But once you start talking about giving up real assets, things get dicey fast. As much as I trust this FO when it comes to the draft, I don't think there's much reason to trust their NBA scouting. McD correctly identified Bled and IT as being undervalued. But then BK was a huge whiff. And then they dramatically underestimated IT despite the fact that he was playing in their own gym. Chandler hasn't looked like a coup. LaMarcus would not have been a boon, in hindsight.

So this FO going after another shiny big name player - a shoot-first, defense-last one at that - is worrisome. He's basically the opposite of the kind of player we all thought the FO was hoping to get in the draft - Lonzo Ball, pass first point guard. A guy like that makes sense, given that we have more scorers than playmakers. Kyrie, though?

Don't get me wrong; I understand the appeal. If Kyrie came here, committed to the team, AND WE DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY A BIG PRICE TO BRING HIM IN (read: Ulis, Booker, Jackson, Bender, Warren), then it could be a coup. You could use Kyrie/Booker/Jackson as a lure for the final piece this team really needs - and that's a center. Marc Gasol, Deandre Jordan, Rudy Gobert... add one of those guys to a team that is clicking, and you may get yourself in the conversation.

But all that would still be a couple years down the line. Irving would be up for his second extension, and at the same time, you have to worry about the injuries. And Ulis, despite his lack of size, could end up the better player in terms of +/-. What if he wants to start? Do you let him go? He won't be RFA.

In addition to those considerations, there's the fact that the biggest hole on the roster - a slam dunking, rim protecting center - is most obviously and easily filled by a high 2018 draft pick. We're going to win fewer games than our talent merits this season in any case, due to the strength of the conference. You could embrace it, maintain all of your liquid assets, carry things forward a year, grab the last pillar in this rebuild, and then, when all's said and done, still be able to add a major piece via trade or free agency. That's the safer route, and it's the route I think is more likely to win a championship.

So I return to my original point. You lose opportunity cost with Kyrie, as well as, I'm assuming, liquid assets (rookie contracts, draft picks). But talent is talent. So you'd add him for nothing, clearly. And you'd deal Bled for him straight up. But how much more should we be willing to pay, when it is easily foreseeable how his acquisition could actually move us farther from the one goal we share, which is winning a championship?

Personally, I would continue to prioritize the development of our youth. ONE MORE YEAR. SUCK FOR ONE MORE YEAR. Add that last piece in next year's draft, then go ahead. Add your superstars. Sign your big free agents. Market the **** out of this squad and go for it. But right now? I say no. HOLD.

I agree with all of this, although I believe Ulis can be an RFA if we let him into FA a year early (unless that changed since Parsons in the new CBA). The way it used to work, a 2nd rounder could still be RFA so long as you let him out in 3 years instead of 4 or 4 years instead of 5. In Houston's case, they had him for something like $1 mil in his final year of contract, but let him out to test FA as an RFA because they never expected Parsons to get a max. Once he did, they decided to let him go rather than tie up their cap space.

[akhan786]

I think at the end of the day too Kyrie doesn't want to come here. Why destroy the current time frame for a player who will likely sulk and then sign for the Knicks in 2019?

[starbosa10]

Bled, Warren, Mia 18' is the most I'd offer. Anything more I'd walk away unless you he signs an extension

[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.

Top 5*.

I'm not saying that Lebron sitting shouldn't have any effect on the Cavs but the problem is that not only are the Cavs worse on defense, their offense also becomes absolute garbage. If Irving is so good on offense, why are the Cavs so bad when he's running the show?

This was taken from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fancy-stats/wp/2017/07/25/the-one-red-flag-a-team-trading-for-kyrie-irving-needs-to-know/

Before James’s return in 2014, the Cavaliers were outscored by at least 5.1 net points per 100 possessions with Irving on the court, roughly the same production we expect from a team that wins 25 to 27 games a season. In 2014-15 Cleveland had a net rating of plus-0.9 with Irving on the court and James on the bench. The next season that declined to minus-0.5 and then again to minus-8 in 2016-17, a mark lower than the 26-win Los Angeles Lakers (minus-7.2 net rating) last season

When James sits out games, the Cavs winning percentage would place them with some of the worst teams in the league. If Irving is good, why can't he at least keep them close to a .500 team? Because Irving is one of the most overrated players in the NBA. I thought it was absolutely insane that people thought he was better than Curry after the Cavs won the finals a year ago. Dude is garbage without James and I don't want him on the Suns at all. He can put points on the board but he does not make those around him better and he's an atrocious defender. We will never come close to being a contender with him on our team.

Yes, if when he plays with JR Smith, Korver, Love and Thompson, they play about as good as one of the worst teams in the NBA, then why would we we do better with him than that, in a much tougher conference, particularly if we trade 2 of our best 3 players to get him? Obviously he is a slight upgrade over one of them, but then we have three guys 20 or younger, journeyman, scrubs, and Ulis. Then he leaves or we pay him like 4/130 or 5/170 and maybe a big Booker contract the same summer and maybe max our team out or come close.

[bwgood77]

I'm convinced Irving doesn't cut it as an all-star in the Western Conference (or barely if he is lucky)

In the notoriously weak Eastern Conference he managed two all-star nods on losing teams in his second and third year. Hell our near all-star Knight was playing in the east and was considered as a possible all-star selection during that time.

Really the guard competition is very weak with Wade, Irving, Holiday, Wall, Joe Johnson, DeRozan, Lowry, Walker, Thomas, Teague, and Rondo earning spots during Irvings four all-star appearances.

Compare that to the West with Paul, Bryant, Westbrook, Parker, Harden, Curry, Lillard, and Thompson making regular appearances in over that time. Honestly, Irving might be as good as Lillard ... maybe ... his advanced stats are skewed because he has been playing with Lebron. His true shooting percentage went up a decent clip. Irving is no where near Paul, Westbrook, Harden, or Curry.

What would we be willing to give up for Lillard?
What would we be willing to give up for Thompson?
Is Irving better than either of those players?

One thing for sure ... we should not sell the farm to get Irvning. Bledsoe's offense would thrive being next to Lebron. He defense is way better than Irving. To me they are nearly the same player statistically. Bledsoe for Irving and a 1st round pick is the best I would offer. Otherwise just walk away from the table McD.

Are you sure Lillard's ever made it? Conley hasn't made it either. He's much better than some of those eastern guys that have made it.

[bigfoot]

I'm convinced Irving doesn't cut it as an all-star in the Western Conference (or barely if he is lucky)

In the notoriously weak Eastern Conference he managed two all-star nods on losing teams in his second and third year. Hell our near all-star Knight was playing in the east and was considered as a possible all-star selection during that time.

Really the guard competition is very weak with Wade, Irving, Holiday, Wall, Joe Johnson, DeRozan, Lowry, Walker, Thomas, Teague, and Rondo earning spots during Irvings four all-star appearances.

Compare that to the West with Paul, Bryant, Westbrook, Parker, Harden, Curry, Lillard, and Thompson making regular appearances in over that time. Honestly, Irving might be as good as Lillard ... maybe ... his advanced stats are skewed because he has been playing with Lebron. His true shooting percentage went up a decent clip. Irving is no where near Paul, Westbrook, Harden, or Curry.

What would we be willing to give up for Lillard?
What would we be willing to give up for Thompson?
Is Irving better than either of those players?

One thing for sure ... we should not sell the farm to get Irvning. Bledsoe's offense would thrive being next to Lebron. He defense is way better than Irving. To me they are nearly the same player statistically. Bledsoe for Irving and a 1st round pick is the best I would offer. Otherwise just walk away from the table McD.

Are you sure Lillard's ever made it? Conley hasn't made it either. He's much better than some of those eastern guys that have made it.

Lillard has made it twice.

[garrick]

If Kyrie doesn't enjoy playing with a willing passer like LBJ what makes anyone think he's going to enjoy playing with a young team like the Suns?

We saw what happened with Marbury who was a score first PG and even he was more of a facilitator than Irving was, Bledsoe also just isn't a pass first PG but that is more to his lack of PG skills and he isn't really one to pout if he can't get enough shots.

[bwgood77]

I'm sure Jones has called Kyrie and asked if he would be okay with playing for Phoenix and Kyrie wouldn't mind.

Curious, why exactly are you sure of this?

[jcsunsfan]

I'm sure Jones has called Kyrie and asked if he would be okay with playing for Phoenix and Kyrie wouldn't mind.

Curious, why exactly are you sure of this?

Because it is such an obvious thing to do.

[8on]

I'm sure Jones has called Kyrie and asked if he would be okay with playing for Phoenix and Kyrie wouldn't mind.

Curious, why exactly are you sure of this?

Because it is such an obvious thing to do.

Wouldn't that be tampering?

[Kerrsed]

Curious, why exactly are you sure of this?

Because it is such an obvious thing to do.

Wouldn't that be tampering?

Yes it is, and i bet it happens more than anyone knows.

I mean in this day and age of social media and whatnot, even players are already doing what they can for their teams to get that info out there.