bwgood77 wrote:phrazbit wrote:Puff wrote:
Pure genius.
Steve Nash probably would not make the all star team in the West in today's NBA.
What decade and how will we acquire a player of Kyrie's skill level? I could care less if he is an All Star. I just want this team to get better. I can understand some of the concerns, but we and the Cavaliers are in charge of what happens to him for the next 2 years. We have proven we cannot attract any legit free agents so why not at least try to get him with reasonable resources. If he sucks as bad as a lot or you think, it helps the tank and really does nothing to hurt our future. That is unless you are in love with Bledsoe and want to max him out in two years.
We still do not have a clue who our bigs are going to be going forward. We hope Bender and Chriss pan out, but who really knows. If we stick with Bledsoe, it is either him or the use of another high draft pick to replace him. Next year is suppose to be a big man's draft. It would be a shame to pass on a legit big to bring in another PG.
What this comes down to is who would your rather have going forward: Bledsoe or Kyrie
That is the decision and it has nothing to do with the All Star game.
My line was in response to the idea that Kyrie being an all-star was, along with 2 other all-stars, something that makes us obvious contenders. Which is, in and of itself, a totally bogus notion and... as said... he won't be an all-star anyway.
And not that it matters, but Nash of 2005-2010 would absolutely 100% be an all-star in today's west. Even ignoring his gaudy shooting numbers, the league leader in assists is basically an all-star lock.
As for Kyrie, I've made my opinion plain and it is not about losing Bledsoe, it is that I think Kyrie is fools gold. And there is absolutely risk involved. It is hard to develop players when your offense is being ran through a guy who wants to shot 25 times a game, dribbles the clock away, does nothing to make the lives of his teammates easier and cannot be bothered to make an effort defensively. I think him and Booker would be a terrible pairing and I think we'd be stuck having to choose between them, all the while never escaping being sub mediocre.
Kyrie is a very talented player, I just doubt his talent translates into winning NBA basketball when one of the best players in league history isn't out there next to him making him seem much more efficient and masking his many weaknesses.
I agree. He plays the exact type of basketball many people seem to hate, but many ignore that because he's looked good next to LeBron covering his weaknesses, allowing him to focus solely on his strengths. He does that on a team like ours, it might make him look good....a nice advertisement for free agency at the detriment of the team and our players developing. He would want all the game winning shots, and theoretically he SHOULD take them over Booker, but Booker may like his chances too, and to develop his confidence and get his looks.
Not only is he not the right player for our team right now, we definitely should not put any picks that could be top 5-7 or any young players in the deal. We can't afford to when a team on his list will likely offer the max when he's a free agency ready to make his way to one of them. Playing near home in NY with all the hype, or playing with his buddy Jimmy will likely be what he wants to do if we don't pony up the $35 million a year to keep him the same year we extend Booker, who will be eligible for less.
I remember some of the same concerns about James Harden when he was available. He was in a similar situation in OKC as Kyrie is in Cleveland. Harden got his own team and he exploded and by the way he is not a great defender either. I can see similar things happening with Kyrie. When he had his own team he was a teenager with little talent around him. Now he is on Lebron's team. Harden was on Westbrook and Durrant's team. When Harden got his own team, he went nuts. I was in the minority when Harden became available and thought we should throw everything & the kitchen sink at OKC to get him. Most thought he wasn't all that.
There are a lot of similarities in Harden's and Kyrie's game. Both are great finishers but Kyrie is a better shooter from distance. Kyrie has averaged more assists than Harden did in OKC. Harden was not the man in OKC and neither is Kyrie in Cleveland.
I remain consistent and not wishing for some goofy 3 team trade. I make a deal directly with Cleveland that does not include Booker, Jackson or our 2018 pick. Everything else is on the table, take your pick.
If we do acquire him and it doesn't work out in 2 years I either trade him or let him walk. Nothing lost.
I do not understand the worry about paying him & Booker. If they are both worth it, pay them. If they aren't, move on.
It appears that Kyrie really wants to end up in New York. When will anyone of any merit want to play in Phoenix?
I guess we will have to make a trade. I rest my case.
