Trade & FA Ideas & Discussion #5: A Serving of Irving?

[Kerrsed]

[BobbieL]

OK, you're right, and you're actually using an argument I use about who is "called" PG isn't always necessarily the "point". But, even though Harden usually had the ball in his hands and was more the point guy than Beverley, he didn't truly transform into the MVP caliber type player he is until he played and bought into the D'Antoni system. He was the type of player that was not fun to watch whatsoever in his play style and it wasn't really "team" ball.

And if you read the players tribune article about him and D'Antoni watching Nash footage, Harden said he first though "I don't want to do SSOL" or something like that, but finally bought in, and that is when he took a major leap.

Kyrie has shared those duties with LeBron, but even before LeBron he never averaged more assists, and Lowe and others have since pointed out that when LeBron sat, his shot rate went to historic levels while he only had a slight uptick in assists...so he doesn't suddenly change if he is in charge. He still was surrounded by great shooters.

Since these guards (Kyrie, Booker) are all offense, no D, to REALLY maximize their effectiveness offensively in a sheer effort to outscore opponents, it would be interesting if D'Antoni was the coach and to see if those guys would buy in. Sometimes players do and sometimes they don't. Some players are just kind of stuck in their ways and resort to playing how they always have.

I do hope if we get him he really makes an effort to get everyone involved so everyone stays engaged on the floor. While I have my doubt about fit and whether he would like to stay long term, and how I like what we have going without him, and not wanting to give up too much, I know he is a premier talent and that players with his elite scoring skill don't come along too often.

And I agree with you that Harden was a very good passer but wasn't an elite level passer until D'Antoni came to town. But I don't expect MVP level passing from Irving. I was just trying to show that Harden with his now MVP level passing wasn't always that way even when he was running the show for years before D'Antoni was made coach.

I'm not going say I'm not a little bit concerned about the Cav's poor performance with Kyrie running point but they are also small samples on a team that's been drilled to run to spots and dives to the rim based on Lebron's ability to make those passes. If there was no Lebron on the team, I'd bet Kyrie's stats would go up and they'd be a good team but not anywhere near a Lebron/Irving team. The second half of that sentence is subjective but I think we could come to an agreement that Kyrie's stats would increase

I just know LeBron dominates that offense - as he should. A bit concerned their record without Kyrie - but I think that partly due to the fact that LeBron dominates the ball and offense.

And this comparison to the Warriors is not fair. First, the Warriors have been maturing together for awhile/ Second, they only made the playoffs what, five seasons ago, two with Jackson, three with Kerr. Before that , a lot of lean years. One playoff run over 12 seasons

Two, the Warriors were not just built by the draft -the Bogut trade was huge; dumping Biedrins, Rush and two draft picks was huge to get them Iguodala.

But it did take the Bogut trade to help legitimize them at the time. Kyrie might do the same thing

[8on]

yeah, I just want something to happen already.

I see the upside of getting him, and I see the upside of not getting him. I'd be fine either way, at this point.

C'mon Woj. Time to fire up the B42's and get bombing. (Unless you're in North Korea with Dennis Rodman. In that case, don't bomb them. I don't really want a nuclear war.)

[bwgood77]

I've watched him play over the years. I've watched him play when he was the man and I've watched him when he played second fiddle behind Lebron. I've watched a few passing highlights but that's more for entertainment than anything because I'm acutely aware highlights are just that, highlights. I looked at his stats, I looked at his role and I look at his abilities. I believe he can be a better passer if he became a focal point of running the offense. Will he be Harden or Westbrook or Wall averaging double digit assist numbers? Probably not. But how many PG's are capable of averaging even 5 assists playing next to Lebron? I just don't believe he's unchangeable and stuck in his ways but I also don't believe he's going to explode and turn into James Harden either. I don't think my expectations are overly ambitious

I think team chemistry is very important. It's a huge reason why the Dragic/Bledsoe back court worked. I don't deny it's importance at all. I just don't think our chemistry is at some sort of peak level which you've made it out to be. Yeah we've stayed together considering the season we've been through but chemistry is more than just liking each other, it's also understanding each other's games, tendencies and personalities. Our young guys still don't know each other's games, tendencies and personalities are still developing. If we're talking about a Spurs team with TD, Manu and TP who've played with each other for a decade and you want to remove Manu and insert a Lance Stephenson in there, then yeah I'd be very concerned about the chemistry. But this is a team where more than half of the players haven't even played with each other for more than 2 seasons. I'm not going to pretend we're at peak chemistry levels. I don't know how you could resolutely say he will 'without a doubt' hurt the chemistry of the team.

Regarding defense, we're near the bottom of the league anyway. It's not a huge leap to say we could fall or at least stay stagnant. Which would still leave us near the bottom of the league.

I feel like we're not going to agree on this debate. You're clearly stuck on that side of the fence whereas I'm more optimistic but also fully aware of the risks. I'm happy to move over to your side of the fence if we're talking about including another promising young player like JJ but I feel the price is right, the risk is priced in the package and it's an opportunity we should take advantage of.

I'm in the finance world and deal with risk not as a feeling but as a price. Every move, even non-moves has risks. The risk of not making moves is even if you're in a position where you're ahead, the world could move by you even if you're doing nothing. That's why when I consider a trade for Irving and the risk of him stinking up the team and leaving in 2 yrs, it's priced into what we give up. What we give up is Bledsoe (gone in 2yrs likely), Chriss (has promise but only promise), 1st (who knows) and that's not a crazy package to give up.

I didn't say without a doubt he would screw up chemistry, but that without a doubt he could. You're arguing as if you know what the ultimate deal is. We have no idea what it might be. Everything is really just guesswork.

The biggest concern for me isn't chemistry. It's everything I've mentioned combined. This post on the General Board sums it up well. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1600181&start=1140#p57976337

That post mentions Jackson, but regardless of who it is, it's a good point. The potential chemistry issues and no defense and not passing/playing team ball or just other potential issues.

I was just a big fan of the timeline. Trusting that process. Building organically. Controlling your assets for years. I like the hometown heros you draft. I don't mind injecting that extra talent into it all when you are ready to contend, and know that player will be engaged and wants to be there, but knowing he likely would much rather be elsewhere and will go elsewhere is the biggest concern, along with leaving a gaping hole when he leaves, depleting our assets obtaining him and potentially while he's here, and potentially irritating other players....taking that spotlight and playing for himself.

I work in finance too and this feels like a bigger risk to me than you seem to think. But it's pretty difficult to make a definitive stance on it not knowing the ultimate price.

I can be optimistic and think everything will work out perfectly but it feels like fantasy land. But come the start of the season, I will get there no matter who we go to war with.

[darealjuice]

Kyrie was an All Star twice before LeBron came back to Cleveland lol... I get LeBron was the major part of him winning a ring already, but let's not pretend Kyrie is Steve Kerr...

Iverson was an all star a bunch too. Even led his team to the finals once without one of the best players of all time leading the way. But it doesn't mean I ever wanted to trade for the guy. I remember when Webber got paired up with him later he hated it...says he dribbles too much. I think our players hated playing with Knight for the same reason and I don't see it being any different than Kyrie.

I think it's important to build a team cohesively, and I don't think he's really a good fit with Booker at all. Now I could see an argument that he's better than Booker so take the better player if you have to choose, but we are in control of Booker for quite a while. I am curious though, if we trade for him (and it seems like we are going to), having made Booker the face of the franchise, how that all works out since he no longer will be. Not that it should be a huge concern, but it will be an interesting dynamic.

That's fine, I can understand the thought process with most that even if I don't agree with it all. My point was only that likening Kyrie to Steve Kerr or John Paxson is incredibly disingenuous. It also irks me a bit how much people like to cherry pick +/- stats from before he had any talent around him and when he is the only good player on the court like they're definitive measure of his impact on a team. Booker's on/off and +/- stats are just as bad (if not worse), so I don't get why we ignore that and nit pick Kyrie while we treat Booker as untouchable. Kyrie is an outstanding player, it doesn't take a lot of watching him to pick that up just like it doesn't take a lot of watching Booker to see how good he is and can be. Kyrie's everything Bledsoe is at this point of his career, except younger and with a much more consistent outside shot, and I know everyone wants to wait for a pass-first point guard but the reality is that they're a dying breed.

[bwgood77]

Kyrie was an All Star twice before LeBron came back to Cleveland lol... I get LeBron was the major part of him winning a ring already, but let's not pretend Kyrie is Steve Kerr...

Iverson was an all star a bunch too. Even led his team to the finals once without one of the best players of all time leading the way. But it doesn't mean I ever wanted to trade for the guy. I remember when Webber got paired up with him later he hated it...says he dribbles too much. I think our players hated playing with Knight for the same reason and I don't see it being any different than Kyrie.

I think it's important to build a team cohesively, and I don't think he's really a good fit with Booker at all. Now I could see an argument that he's better than Booker so take the better player if you have to choose, but we are in control of Booker for quite a while. I am curious though, if we trade for him (and it seems like we are going to), having made Booker the face of the franchise, how that all works out since he no longer will be. Not that it should be a huge concern, but it will be an interesting dynamic.

That's fine, I can understand the thought process with most that even if I don't agree with it all. My point was only that likening Kyrie to Steve Kerr or John Paxson is incredibly disingenuous. It also irks me a bit how much people like to cherry pick +/- stats from before he had any talent around him and when he is the only good player on the court like they're definitive measure of his impact on a team. Booker's on/off and +/- stats are just as bad (if not worse), so I don't get why we ignore that and nit pick Kyrie while we treat Booker as untouchable. Kyrie is an outstanding player, it doesn't take a lot of watching him to pick that up just like it doesn't take a lot of watching Booker to see how good he is and can be. Kyrie's everything Bledsoe is at this point of his career, except younger and with a much more consistent outside shot, and I know everyone wants to wait for a pass-first point guard but the reality is that they're a dying breed.

That's fair and I'm certainly not higher on Booker or anything than Kyrie. We can only hope Booker gets to where Kyrie is as a shooter/scorer. I do love good shooters, 40%+ from 3 etc, which we don't have, so that helps. I do agree he is an outstanding player as I've mentioned, and I picked him in batsmasher's poll about better player to initially build around.

Most of my concerns are regarding other things I have mentioned. My preference for lead guard is that they don't dribble a ton and that they initiate ball movement, etc, but what Kyrie is good at, he is elite. He is as clutch as they come. It will be fun to watch him if he's a Sun. Does he make our team better in the long run and 3-4-5 years from now, are we happy we traded for him? Not sure.

Hopefully he thinks the Suns are the place for him and the team runs like clockwork.

[bwoolf2]

Iverson was an all star a bunch too. Even led his team to the finals once without one of the best players of all time leading the way. But it doesn't mean I ever wanted to trade for the guy. I remember when Webber got paired up with him later he hated it...says he dribbles too much. I think our players hated playing with Knight for the same reason and I don't see it being any different than Kyrie.

I think it's important to build a team cohesively, and I don't think he's really a good fit with Booker at all. Now I could see an argument that he's better than Booker so take the better player if you have to choose, but we are in control of Booker for quite a while. I am curious though, if we trade for him (and it seems like we are going to), having made Booker the face of the franchise, how that all works out since he no longer will be. Not that it should be a huge concern, but it will be an interesting dynamic.

That's fine, I can understand the thought process with most that even if I don't agree with it all. My point was only that likening Kyrie to Steve Kerr or John Paxson is incredibly disingenuous. It also irks me a bit how much people like to cherry pick +/- stats from before he had any talent around him and when he is the only good player on the court like they're definitive measure of his impact on a team. Booker's on/off and +/- stats are just as bad (if not worse), so I don't get why we ignore that and nit pick Kyrie while we treat Booker as untouchable. Kyrie is an outstanding player, it doesn't take a lot of watching him to pick that up just like it doesn't take a lot of watching Booker to see how good he is and can be. Kyrie's everything Bledsoe is at this point of his career, except younger and with a much more consistent outside shot, and I know everyone wants to wait for a pass-first point guard but the reality is that they're a dying breed.

That's fair and I'm certainly not higher on Booker or anything than Kyrie. We can only hope Booker gets to where Kyrie is as a shooter/scorer. I do love good shooters, 40%+ etc, which we don't have, so that helps. I do agree he is an outstanding player as I've mentioned, and I picked him in batsmasher's poll about better player to initially build around.

Most of my concerns are regarding other things I have mentioned. My preference for lead guard is that they don't dribble a ton and that they initiate ball movement, etc, but what Kyrie is good at, he is elite. He is as clutch as they come. It will be fun to watch him if he's a Sun. Does he make our team better in the long run and 3-4-5 years from now, are we happy we traded for him? Not sure.

Hopefully he thinks the Suns are the place for him and the team runs like clockwork.

Agree with almost all of this I think my main thing is there is no need to overpay(are we bidding against ourselves), he has asked to be traded that puts tremendous pressure on Cleveland, no one else has a veteran solid PG to offer back that LeBron is friends with, and 1st round picks and filler. We can be patient and let this play out the longer it takes the stronger position we have and the bigger urgency CLE has to move him. I have a hard time finding better offers out there than what the Suns offer even without including any of our young players, at least that I think LeBron would sign off on, and lets be honest he is still going to be involved in any decisions.

[lilfishi22]

I didn't say without a doubt he would screw up chemistry, but that without a doubt he could. You're arguing as if you know what the ultimate deal is. We have no idea what it might be. Everything is really just guesswork.

The biggest concern for me isn't chemistry. It's everything I've mentioned combined. This post on the General Board sums it up well. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1600181&start=1140#p57976337

That post mentions Jackson, but regardless of who it is, it's a good point. The potential chemistry issues and no defense and not passing/playing team ball or just other potential issues.

I was just a big fan of the timeline. Trusting that process. Building organically. Controlling your assets for years. I like the hometown heros you draft. I don't mind injecting that extra talent into it all when you are ready to contend, and know that player will be engaged and wants to be there, but knowing he likely would much rather be elsewhere and will go elsewhere is the biggest concern, along with leaving a gaping hole when he leaves, depleting our assets obtaining him and potentially while he's here, and potentially irritating other players....taking that spotlight and playing for himself.

I work in finance too and this feels like a bigger risk to me than you seem to think. But it's pretty difficult to make a definitive stance on it not knowing the ultimate price.

I can be optimistic and think everything will work out perfectly but it feels like fantasy land. But come the start of the season, I will get there no matter who we go to war with.

Apologies if I misquoted you.

I'm just looking at the offers that seemed to have reached the highest levels from the leaks and the constant in those packages is Bledsoe, some 1st round pick and Chriss/JJ. I'm not on board with a JJ trade so I won't discuss the merits of that particular trade but Bledsoe, Chriss and a 1st is what my package looks like.

I had a read of that post and I don't agree we're selling the farm by cashing in on Irving now. JJ, Booker, Bender (they don't want him), Ulis and Warren seem to still be on the team so we're really only cashing in Chriss and a pick. Hardly a high price for elite talent. And again, even if Kyrie leaves, we're not left with a huge hole. Chriss might be gone but Bender is still around. Bledsoe is gone but he's gone regardless if we have Kyrie or not. The 1st round picks are gone but we don't know what we don't have anyway. Even if Warren wasn't included in the deal, I think we'll need to think long and hard about what kind of deal he's worth.

My issue with the timeline is that I'm not convinced we have the pieces. You think we do. I like the pieces we have but I'm just not convinced 3 of Chriss, JJ, Bender, Booker and Ulis will turn into stars which is what I think you'll need to contend.

[noelphx]

Pages and pages of nothing happening.

[Revived]

I trust McD isn't stupid enough trade Jackson or Booker or any non highly protected Suns own picks for Kyrie.

[bwgood77]

I didn't say without a doubt he would screw up chemistry, but that without a doubt he could. You're arguing as if you know what the ultimate deal is. We have no idea what it might be. Everything is really just guesswork.

The biggest concern for me isn't chemistry. It's everything I've mentioned combined. This post on the General Board sums it up well. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1600181&start=1140#p57976337

That post mentions Jackson, but regardless of who it is, it's a good point. The potential chemistry issues and no defense and not passing/playing team ball or just other potential issues.

I was just a big fan of the timeline. Trusting that process. Building organically. Controlling your assets for years. I like the hometown heros you draft. I don't mind injecting that extra talent into it all when you are ready to contend, and know that player will be engaged and wants to be there, but knowing he likely would much rather be elsewhere and will go elsewhere is the biggest concern, along with leaving a gaping hole when he leaves, depleting our assets obtaining him and potentially while he's here, and potentially irritating other players....taking that spotlight and playing for himself.

I work in finance too and this feels like a bigger risk to me than you seem to think. But it's pretty difficult to make a definitive stance on it not knowing the ultimate price.

I can be optimistic and think everything will work out perfectly but it feels like fantasy land. But come the start of the season, I will get there no matter who we go to war with.

Apologies if I misquoted you.

I'm just looking at the offers that seemed to have reached the highest levels from the leaks and the constant in those packages is Bledsoe, some 1st round pick and Chriss/JJ. I'm not on board with a JJ trade so I won't discuss the merits of that particular trade but Bledsoe, Chriss and a 1st is what my package looks like.

I had a read of that post and I don't agree we're selling the farm by cashing in on Irving now. JJ, Booker, Bender (they don't want him), Ulis and Warren seem to still be on the team so we're really only cashing in Chriss and a pick. Hardly a high price for elite talent. And again, even if Kyrie leaves, we're not left with a huge hole. Chriss might be gone but Bender is still around. Bledsoe is gone but he's gone regardless if we have Kyrie or not. The 1st round picks are gone but we don't know what we don't have anyway. Even if Warren wasn't included in the deal, I think we'll need to think long and hard about what kind of deal he's worth.

My issue with the timeline is that I'm not convinced we have the pieces. You think we do. I like the pieces we have but I'm just not convinced 3 of Chriss, JJ, Bender, Booker and Ulis will turn into stars which is what I think you'll need to contend.

I don't know if we have the pieces, but I do think Chriss and Bender have sky high upside. I also think the top 5 and maybe a couple more of the next draft have really high sky upside. I think our team as is and using our picks wisely the next couple of years, will be primed to make major steps in 2, 3 and especially 4 years.

I don't think the deal you mention is a big price to pay for Kyrie at all. If we were on his list, no question. The reason teams like Denver and others are staying out and not giving their young players is that they see the risk of him leaving, and he would probably more likely stay in a place like Denver that could make a major dent with Jokic, Millsap, and him.

A number of teams could come forward with good offers, but of course not the teams on his list. So everyone else is hesitant. It's understandable. They are not sure it's worth giving up that young player they control for years and be left empty handed in 2 years.

Even a team on his list took Wiggins, who really is all hype, off the table.

I am a huge fan of Bender and Chriss, but I don't know that both would pan out, and I love that even though they can both block shots, and maybe become decent 3 pt shooters, they have different other strengths outside of that. But I am not sure both pan out. Maybe one will.

I like the idea of premier talent that you can control for 8 years or so, and next draft has some premier talent. I don't see a rush to try and make the playoffs with a guy more than likely to leave and go play in the spotlight of NY likely growing up a Knicks fan or playing for a contender or with his friends.

But yes, we probably won't agree. It's not that I wouldn't want Kyrie at any price either. If it was Bledsoe and the Miami pick, I'd do it even though I don't think he fits our team all that well, and may hurt our draft picks. Though we might not be that much better with him anyway. However, if it's Chriss and Bledsoe, we probably should be better since Chriss is a big net negative on the court, and Bender is a positive, and Dudley might play more if he's around because we will likely play vets like Dudley and Chandler as much as possible in hopes of the playoffs so Kyrie feels we have that playoff team already...or close to it.

[enigmatics]

Who brings more credibility for the younger guys to pay attention to - Watson or Kyrie? Easy answer here.

Keep in mind, we bring in Kyrie and SUDDENLY it ups the franchise's marketable in future free agencies.

[JMac1]

Tick tock.......tick tock........tick tock...... goes the old grandfather clock in an 1856 Victorian Home.

[Phystic]

I can't read the last 40 pages, any updates from any of our insiders(do we even have any Suns insiders here these days?)

[matt131]

I can't read the last 40 pages, any updates from any of our insiders(do we even have any Suns insiders here these days?)

Ray ray said:

I asked a guy in the know within the Suns organization what percentage does he have on Kyrie joint the Suns.. his response was 95% chance he's a Suns...

He couldn't give me any details as to who is going. But one thing is for sure, the Suns FO want to have a team of Irving, Booker and JJ going forward

He also said he doesn't think this is going to prolong any longer... I'm not sure if that means the trade is gonna happen soon or the Suns have giving the Cavs a dateline before they move on.

[bwgood77]

I can't read the last 40 pages, any updates from any of our insiders(do we even have any Suns insiders here these days?)

Just no Jackson no deal, but that was a while ago. He becomes eligible to trade...well I would say tomorrow, but I guess that's officially here, eastern time.

There have been rumors of lesser deals since, but nothing went down for whatever reason yet, so people are wondering if Jackson being eligible was the hold up.

[GeraldsGreenery]

There's no way in any way shape or form that McD trades Jackson.............................................right?

[Phystic]

Thanks guys. I thought rayray had some insight, is there a feature to lookup posts by people? I couldn't find it.

Any way, I hope our stance remains do not trade JJ. I'm ok with trading for Irving, as long as we aren't leveraging out core/future. I'm ok with something around Bledsoe and Warren(I don't want to pay him). A core moving forward of Irving, Booker and JJ could be pretty fun. Hope to see some news soon, none of it involving JJ.

[matt131]

I can't read the last 40 pages, any updates from any of our insiders(do we even have any Suns insiders here these days?)

Just no Jackson no deal, but that was a while ago. He becomes eligible to trade...well I would say tomorrow, but I guess that's officially here, eastern time.

There have been rumors of lesser deals since, but nothing went down for whatever reason yet, so people are wondering if Jackson being eligible was the hold up.

Oh also, Tom Rizzo said: "A pretty good source says they believe this Kyrie to Phoenix thing could happen within the next couple days"

Read on Twitter

[matt131]

Thanks guys. I thought rayray had some insight, is there a feature to lookup posts by people? I couldn't find it.

Any way, I hope our stance remains do not trade JJ. I'm ok with trading for Irving, as long as we aren't leveraging out core/future. I'm ok with something around Bledsoe and Warren(I don't want to pay him). A core moving forward of Irving, Booker and JJ could be pretty fun. Hope to see some news soon, none of it involving JJ.

Nah, I just remember about when he said that.