If You Had to Choose: Kyrie for...

[ecuhus1981]

good. trading him would be a colossal mistake.

Worst case... Having his 40 million come off the books allows us to keep Harden/KD for the duration of their extensions without the tax making that impossible

Best cae, he comes back and we are huge title favorites.

So now you’re worried about the owner’s pocket? Who are you? His accountant?

Losing Kyrie for nothing will be an absolute disaster. Even if he comes off the books we are still over the cap. It’s not like we can use that cap space to sign another big time free agent. So what’s the point? How does the team improve?

And worse yet, Harden hasn’t signed his extension yet. If the Nets lose Kyrie and have no room to improve, you can probably kiss Harden goodbye too.

You now whats worse then losing kyrie for nothing? losing KD/Harden for anything. The repeater tax is exponential to the point where even billionaires cant keep up. if we maxed all 3 guys in 1-2 years one would have to go or a decision would need to be made. those 3 alone put you in the tax on their extensiions year 2.

Prok is right, the downstream effects of signing 3 veteran (10+yr) max contracts is cost prohibitive to adding quality depth around them. It's not that I care whether Tsai pays the tax, it's just unrealistic to expect him or any governor to pay $400mil in tax penalties for a $200mil roster. There's no amount of TV revenue, jersey sales or sponsorships to counterbalance that type of profligate spending. If we max The Big 3, we have to abandon the thought of retaining guys like Brown and Claxton at market value. To do that, we have to be 100% certain that all 3 are committed to this team.

[Suwanee]

good. trading him would be a colossal mistake.

Worst case... Having his 40 million come off the books allows us to keep Harden/KD for the duration of their extensions without the tax making that impossible

Best cae, he comes back and we are huge title favorites.

So now you’re worried about the owner’s pocket? Who are you? His accountant?

Losing Kyrie for nothing will be an absolute disaster. Even if he comes off the books we are still over the cap. It’s not like we can use that cap space to sign another big time free agent. So what’s the point? How does the team improve?

And worse yet, Harden hasn’t signed his extension yet. If the Nets lose Kyrie and have no room to improve, you can probably kiss Harden goodbye too.

You now whats worse then losing kyrie for nothing? losing KD/Harden for anything. The repeater tax is exponential to the point where even billionaires cant keep up. if we maxed all 3 guys in 1-2 years one would have to go or a decision would need to be made. those 3 alone put you in the tax on their extensiions year 2.

So you're ok with Kyrie taking half the salary doing absolute nothing, and on the other hand worried about the repeater tax if we do keep him. Mmmmkay.

Harden is all about that ring. Like I said if we lose Kyrie for nothing and don't have ways to fill the void, doubt Harden will sign the extension. But let me guess, Harden's $40mil coming off the books is a good thing too. Amirite?

[Suwanee]

So now you’re worried about the owner’s pocket? Who are you? His accountant?

Losing Kyrie for nothing will be an absolute disaster. Even if he comes off the books we are still over the cap. It’s not like we can use that cap space to sign another big time free agent. So what’s the point? How does the team improve?

And worse yet, Harden hasn’t signed his extension yet. If the Nets lose Kyrie and have no room to improve, you can probably kiss Harden goodbye too.

You now whats worse then losing kyrie for nothing? losing KD/Harden for anything. The repeater tax is exponential to the point where even billionaires cant keep up. if we maxed all 3 guys in 1-2 years one would have to go or a decision would need to be made. those 3 alone put you in the tax on their extensiions year 2.

Prok is right, the downstream effects of signing 3 veteran (10+yr) max contracts is cost prohibitive to adding quality depth around them. It's not that I care whether Tsai pays the tax, it's just unrealistic to expect him or any governor to pay $400mil in tax penalties for a $200mil roster. There's no amount of TV revenue, jersey sales or sponsorships to counterbalance that type of profligate spending. If we max The Big 3, we have to abandon the thought of retaining guys like Brown and Claxton at market value. To do that, we have to be 100% certain that all 3 are committed to this team.

Marks was hopeful during the offseason that all Big 3 would be extended. If the owner is worried about the repeater tax, why would they extend all of them?

[NetsWorld]

From the sound of KD and Net Income's information, the Nets are all but finished with him and will probably look to move him; I am sure they will try and tweak the roster a bit to address needs. Myles Turner would be a solid get with this group. The big steal for me would be KAT.

Edit--- I realize I had an earlier post not voting for any of these options but unfortunately, you cannot get equal value and Kyrie will most likely not play for the Nets.

[Prokorov]

You now whats worse then losing kyrie for nothing? losing KD/Harden for anything. The repeater tax is exponential to the point where even billionaires cant keep up. if we maxed all 3 guys in 1-2 years one would have to go or a decision would need to be made. those 3 alone put you in the tax on their extensiions year 2.

Prok is right, the downstream effects of signing 3 veteran (10+yr) max contracts is cost prohibitive to adding quality depth around them. It's not that I care whether Tsai pays the tax, it's just unrealistic to expect him or any governor to pay $400mil in tax penalties for a $200mil roster. There's no amount of TV revenue, jersey sales or sponsorships to counterbalance that type of profligate spending. If we max The Big 3, we have to abandon the thought of retaining guys like Brown and Claxton at market value. To do that, we have to be 100% certain that all 3 are committed to this team.

Marks was hopeful during the offseason that all Big 3 would be extended. If the owner is worried about the repeater tax, why would they extend all of them?

because max players dont take 1 or 2 year deals. if they did, they would. you sign them and move 1 once the tax hits huge year 3. this was always the reality.

no one cares what kyrie is paid for sitting at home. we care about if/when he can play

[Prokorov]

From the sound of KD and Net Income's information, the Nets are all but finished with him and will probably look to move him; I am sure they will try and tweak the roster a bit to address needs. Myles Turner would be a solid get with this group. The big steal for me would be KAT.

Edit--- I realize I had an earlier post not voting for any of these options but unfortunately, you cannot get equal value and Kyrie will most likely not play for the Nets.

KAT is awful and an enormous net negative. give me myles turner over him.

[HardenGoat]

The ball is in Irving’s court. Tsai is going to wait and see what his decision is. If he remains unvaccinated and there is no indication the mandate will be lifted he is gone. Anything is better than an empty 35 million which all he represents right now.

[Suwanee]

Prok is right, the downstream effects of signing 3 veteran (10+yr) max contracts is cost prohibitive to adding quality depth around them. It's not that I care whether Tsai pays the tax, it's just unrealistic to expect him or any governor to pay $400mil in tax penalties for a $200mil roster. There's no amount of TV revenue, jersey sales or sponsorships to counterbalance that type of profligate spending. If we max The Big 3, we have to abandon the thought of retaining guys like Brown and Claxton at market value. To do that, we have to be 100% certain that all 3 are committed to this team.

Marks was hopeful during the offseason that all Big 3 would be extended. If the owner is worried about the repeater tax, why would they extend all of them?

because max players dont take 1 or 2 year deals. if they did, they would. you sign them and move 1 once the tax hits huge year 3. this was always the reality.

no one cares what kyrie is paid for sitting at home. we care about if/when he can play

See? That’s the thing. You move, i.e. trade one, and you get equal values back. In the case of trading a star to a team with cap space, you get back boatload of draft picks or young promising talents. That’s COMPLETELY different from losing a star for nothing.

[Prokorov]

Marks was hopeful during the offseason that all Big 3 would be extended. If the owner is worried about the repeater tax, why would they extend all of them?

because max players dont take 1 or 2 year deals. if they did, they would. you sign them and move 1 once the tax hits huge year 3. this was always the reality.

no one cares what kyrie is paid for sitting at home. we care about if/when he can play

See? That’s the thing. You move, i.e. trade one, and you get equal values back. In the case of trading a star to a team with cap space, you get back boatload of draft picks or young promising talents. That’s COMPLETELY different from losing a star for nothing.

thats great, only teams dont give picks to rent a star for 1 year when he may not even play that year.

no one is giving picks for 5 month rental of kyrie. if that trade is there, where we get cap and picks... but i doubt it exsists.

[Suwanee]

because max players dont take 1 or 2 year deals. if they did, they would. you sign them and move 1 once the tax hits huge year 3. this was always the reality.

no one cares what kyrie is paid for sitting at home. we care about if/when he can play

See? That’s the thing. You move, i.e. trade one, and you get equal values back. In the case of trading a star to a team with cap space, you get back boatload of draft picks or young promising talents. That’s COMPLETELY different from losing a star for nothing.

thats great, only teams dont give picks to rent a star for 1 year when he may not even play that year.

no one is giving picks for 5 month rental of kyrie. if that trade is there, where we get cap and picks... but i doubt it exsists.

Of course that trade doesn’t exist for Kyrie. First and foremost, teams with cap space and picks are normally bottom dwellers. If he hasn’t threatened to retire before, he damn sure will if he’s traded to a bottom dweller. No team is gonna take that risk.

But that doesn’t mean you just sit there and let him tie your hands and not do anything about it. If we can’t get equal values back? So what? He’s gonna be a flat 0% for us this year. If we can get even 75% back, I’d do it in a heartbeat.

Disgruntled star like Simmons is a perfect target.

[MrDollarBills]

See? That’s the thing. You move, i.e. trade one, and you get equal values back. In the case of trading a star to a team with cap space, you get back boatload of draft picks or young promising talents. That’s COMPLETELY different from losing a star for nothing.

thats great, only teams dont give picks to rent a star for 1 year when he may not even play that year.

no one is giving picks for 5 month rental of kyrie. if that trade is there, where we get cap and picks... but i doubt it exsists.

Of course that trade doesn’t exist for Kyrie. First and foremost, teams with cap space and picks are normally bottom dwellers. If he hasn’t threatened to retire before, he damn sure will if he’s traded to a bottom dweller. No team is gonna take that risk.

But that doesn’t mean you just sit there and let him tie your hands and not do anything about it. If we can’t get equal values back? So what? He’s gonna be a flat 0% for us this year. If we can get even 75% back, I’d do it in a heartbeat.

Disgruntled star like Simmons is a perfect target.

If I was an NBA GM, I would not trade for Kyrie Irving because his availability and desire to play basketball are uncertain.

Nothing personal, but we're almost to December and he's really sitting out the season. Clearly he doesn't give a sh*t. At this point, I don't want to hear his reasoning. The vaccine is safe. The whole team got vaccinated, no one died. Most of the league is vaccinated and no one died. It's foolishness at this point. He has bailed on the team and is sitting home collecting millions. This isn't a good look.

I honestly think that if he doesn't come back this season, his career is over.

[Suwanee]

thats great, only teams dont give picks to rent a star for 1 year when he may not even play that year.

no one is giving picks for 5 month rental of kyrie. if that trade is there, where we get cap and picks... but i doubt it exsists.

Of course that trade doesn’t exist for Kyrie. First and foremost, teams with cap space and picks are normally bottom dwellers. If he hasn’t threatened to retire before, he damn sure will if he’s traded to a bottom dweller. No team is gonna take that risk.

But that doesn’t mean you just sit there and let him tie your hands and not do anything about it. If we can’t get equal values back? So what? He’s gonna be a flat 0% for us this year. If we can get even 75% back, I’d do it in a heartbeat.

Disgruntled star like Simmons is a perfect target.

If I was an NBA GM, I would not trade for Kyrie Irving because his availability and desire to play basketball are uncertain.

That may very well be true. But at least we need to try. If the Simmons situation gets worse and Embiid misses more games, Philly may get desperate. Worst case they hang up the phone. What’s there to lose?

[Prokorov]

See? That’s the thing. You move, i.e. trade one, and you get equal values back. In the case of trading a star to a team with cap space, you get back boatload of draft picks or young promising talents. That’s COMPLETELY different from losing a star for nothing.

thats great, only teams dont give picks to rent a star for 1 year when he may not even play that year.

no one is giving picks for 5 month rental of kyrie. if that trade is there, where we get cap and picks... but i doubt it exsists.

Of course that trade doesn’t exist for Kyrie. First and foremost, teams with cap space and picks are normally bottom dwellers. If he hasn’t threatened to retire before, he damn sure will if he’s traded to a bottom dweller. No team is gonna take that risk.

But that doesn’t mean you just sit there and let him tie your hands and not do anything about it. If we can’t get equal values back? So what? He’s gonna be a flat 0% for us this year. If we can get even 75% back, I’d do it in a heartbeat.

Disgruntled star like Simmons is a perfect target.

there is no worse fit in the league then simmons. id rather trade for russell simmons.

We are 9-4. it makes 0 sense to trade Kyrie right now. we dont need him in the regular season. Much better off waiting to see if he comes back or the mandate is revised/lifted before the trade deadline. getting 75 cents for him now does nothing. and again, you dont take back salary for kyrie unles sits a star coming back.

[Prokorov]

Of course that trade doesn’t exist for Kyrie. First and foremost, teams with cap space and picks are normally bottom dwellers. If he hasn’t threatened to retire before, he damn sure will if he’s traded to a bottom dweller. No team is gonna take that risk.

But that doesn’t mean you just sit there and let him tie your hands and not do anything about it. If we can’t get equal values back? So what? He’s gonna be a flat 0% for us this year. If we can get even 75% back, I’d do it in a heartbeat.

Disgruntled star like Simmons is a perfect target.

If I was an NBA GM, I would not trade for Kyrie Irving because his availability and desire to play basketball are uncertain.

That may very well be true. But at least we need to try. If the Simmons situation gets worse and Embiid misses more games, Philly may get desperate. Worst case they hang up the phone. What’s there to lose?

simmons make us worse, cost us a title, unlike kyrie actually is a locker room cancer, and oh yeah he cant play either because he is not vaccinated.

[Suwanee]

thats great, only teams dont give picks to rent a star for 1 year when he may not even play that year.

no one is giving picks for 5 month rental of kyrie. if that trade is there, where we get cap and picks... but i doubt it exsists.

Of course that trade doesn’t exist for Kyrie. First and foremost, teams with cap space and picks are normally bottom dwellers. If he hasn’t threatened to retire before, he damn sure will if he’s traded to a bottom dweller. No team is gonna take that risk.

But that doesn’t mean you just sit there and let him tie your hands and not do anything about it. If we can’t get equal values back? So what? He’s gonna be a flat 0% for us this year. If we can get even 75% back, I’d do it in a heartbeat.

Disgruntled star like Simmons is a perfect target.

there is no worse fit in the league then simmons. id rather trade for russell simmons.

We are 9-4. it makes 0 sense to trade Kyrie right now. we dont need him in the regular season. Much better off waiting to see if he comes back or the mandate is revised/lifted before the trade deadline. getting 75 cents for him now does nothing. and again, you dont take back salary for kyrie unles sits a star coming back.

I’m not saying trade him now. I’m still hopeful that the mandate gets lifted when the new mayor takes office. However slim the hope may be. But by trade deadline if he’s still not able to play, what then?

[Suwanee]

But if we can get 75 cents for him now? I’d be thrilled. It’ll be a tremendous boost to our current roster.

[Prokorov]

Of course that trade doesn’t exist for Kyrie. First and foremost, teams with cap space and picks are normally bottom dwellers. If he hasn’t threatened to retire before, he damn sure will if he’s traded to a bottom dweller. No team is gonna take that risk.

But that doesn’t mean you just sit there and let him tie your hands and not do anything about it. If we can’t get equal values back? So what? He’s gonna be a flat 0% for us this year. If we can get even 75% back, I’d do it in a heartbeat.

Disgruntled star like Simmons is a perfect target.

there is no worse fit in the league then simmons. id rather trade for russell simmons.

We are 9-4. it makes 0 sense to trade Kyrie right now. we dont need him in the regular season. Much better off waiting to see if he comes back or the mandate is revised/lifted before the trade deadline. getting 75 cents for him now does nothing. and again, you dont take back salary for kyrie unles sits a star coming back.

I’m not saying trade him now. I’m still hopeful that the mandate gets lifted when the new mayor takes office. However slim the hope may be. But by trade deadline if he’s still not able to play, what then?

I'd still keep him. the upside he comes back even for the playoffs is huge (heavy title favorites). the upside of trading him is nowhere near that. the Kuzmas and Harrells of the world are the same types we already have. thats the kind of guys your looking at. Simmons makes us worse and is a huge playoff liability.

for the right deal, i say yes at the deadline, but the right deal just isnt there. Lowry, Van Vleet, Lillard... not gonna happen.

[Prokorov]

But if we can get 75 cents for him now? I’d be thrilled. It’ll be a tremendous boost to our current roster.

no it wouldnt. it would barely move the needle and probably be a major reality check for teammates hoping to get him back. these guys know without kyrie, a title is a much tougher road and they no longer are favorites

[Suwanee]

How is Simmons making us worse? Aren’t you the one saying we have enough shooting even without Kyrie? Outside of shooting, what’s not to like about Simmons? Replace Brown with Simmons, you don’t think we’ll be much better?

You’re just the contrarian that likes to argue for the sake of arguing.

[Suwanee]

But if we can get 75 cents for him now? I’d be thrilled. It’ll be a tremendous boost to our current roster.

no it wouldnt. it would barely move the needle and probably be a major reality check for teammates hoping to get him back. these guys know without kyrie, a title is a much tougher road and they no longer are favorites

The reality is Kyrie may never come back. Those guys know it too.