I agree with this. The worry about 2 yrs is silly.Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:This "only for 2 years" thing is quite silly. Most contracts nowadays are only for 3-4 years maximum. You will almost never find a star player in a trade who is locked up under contract for more than 2 years. Acting like Kyrie is a "2 year rental" is ridiculous; if almost any player is on a team for 2+ years and is unhappy, he can leave. This literally shouldn't be part of your thought process when it comes to whether we should trade for Kyrie. I'd prefer to talk about the basketball reasons / fit with the team rather than trying to negatively predict things that could happen 2 years down the line with no reason to believe whether they will or won't happen.
If you're so concerned about players leaving the Suns someday, perhaps it's worth it to worry about Booker leaving us after his contract's up because we didn't do what we could to put a good team around him. That's at least as likely, perhaps more, than Kyrie leaving the Suns after 2 years.
Around the League: The Offseason
Re: Around the League: The Offseason
"When we all think alike, nobody is thinking" - Walter Lippmann
"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." ~ Frederick Douglass
"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." ~ Frederick Douglass
- Aztec Sunsfan
- Posts: 1880
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:56 pm
Re: Around the League: The Offseason
Cap wrote: Really? The guy who traded the #3 pick in the 2017 draft for Brandon Knight? We're still kinda waiting for his first won trade. Dragic for two #1s was a good trade considered in a vacuum, but with everything else that went down at the same time, that was not a good day. Other than the addition-by-subtraction Keef trade, what was the last trade that really worked out well?
Things do not happen in a vacuum, so yeah, he did wonders extracting value on those lost causes.
Brandon Knight is an awful mistake, but that pick has not been conveyed, the 3rd pick on 2017 remained with LA, no harm on that, at least not yet. Maybe if it turns out of the top 7 we can start moving on from it. Other than that, he has extracted fair value in most of his moves, and to call it a win, I don't think you have to near-rape the other side. Sometimes people acts like trading players is just to open ESPN trade machine, call the other team and send an email to the league. Everybody is looking for something, and nowadays, the only way to "Win" a trade is out of taking advantage on off-court situations, like Kyrie's right now. So again, even if we painted ourselves in a corner, and did better that the recent round of disgruntled players exchanged around the league. George, Butler, didn't ask for a trade out of happiness, their teams also mismanagement the situation to that point and even in a vacuum, those were bad returns for players more significant to their teams than Keef, and a level or two above Dragic.
Re: Around the League: The Offseason
I can't say I agree. It's a different situation. We'll be able to pay Booker more than anybody else since we've had him from the beginning. Also, we know he likes it here and we're treating him well as he grows with the rest of the team. For Irving on the other hand, the difference in pay won't be that large and he already said what teams he wants to play for and we're not on his list. We could very well be losing a good player and draft pick for a two year rental. That's probably more likely than him staying. You're comparing apples and oranges in this case.In2ition wrote:I agree with this. The worry about 2 yrs is silly.Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:This "only for 2 years" thing is quite silly. Most contracts nowadays are only for 3-4 years maximum. You will almost never find a star player in a trade who is locked up under contract for more than 2 years. Acting like Kyrie is a "2 year rental" is ridiculous; if almost any player is on a team for 2+ years and is unhappy, he can leave. This literally shouldn't be part of your thought process when it comes to whether we should trade for Kyrie. I'd prefer to talk about the basketball reasons / fit with the team rather than trying to negatively predict things that could happen 2 years down the line with no reason to believe whether they will or won't happen.
If you're so concerned about players leaving the Suns someday, perhaps it's worth it to worry about Booker leaving us after his contract's up because we didn't do what we could to put a good team around him. That's at least as likely, perhaps more, than Kyrie leaving the Suns after 2 years.
"Be Legendary."
- Ring_Wanted
- Posts: 5011
- Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:47 am
Re: Around the League: The Offseason
Agreed.Superbone wrote:You're comparing apples and oranges in this case.
- Ring_Wanted
- Posts: 5011
- Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:47 am
Re: Around the League: The Offseason
You are probably right.Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:It's fine to me if you guys don't want to trade our various assets, like Bender, or our 1st-rounder, or Jackson, or whatever. But I think it strains credibility a little to claim that offering a lowball package like Bledsoe + future second-rounder or Chandler is even remotely fair value for Kyrie Irving. Now you're just asking Cleveland to give him away. It's okay with me if that is all you would give up; but that is another way of saying you don't want to make a trade for Irving. That is not a fair asking price for a guard of Kyrie's caliber.
At the same time, Bledsoe-Chriss-minor stuff may be a lowball package, but only in a vacuum. Once you look at it within our specific circumstances, it is not that light. For starters, who is offering a better deal? Then, from a player-franchise standpoint, the CBA makes it financial suicide for the player to sign any kind of extension (or exercise his player option for a third year) so you are not getting any long term commitment (and you are not one of the already 'leaked' prefered destinations). Also concerning the fit with Booker.
Yeah, the simple truth is that I don't want to get Kyrie, unless it was so cheap that you just could resist, which of course Cleveland has all the right to reject.
- Ring_Wanted
- Posts: 5011
- Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:47 am
Re: Around the League: The Offseason
Btw (and totally random), if the League is concerned about tanking, how about instilling a relegation system with the G-League? You end up, let's say, bottom three and you are sent to the small league. You still get your high pick in the NBA draft but you have to fight for one year (or more, depending on your FO ineptitude) to get back to the NBA.
- The Bobster
- Posts: 6635
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:04 pm
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
Re: Around the League: The Offseason
How exactly is this going to work?Ring_Wanted wrote:Btw (and totally random), if the League is concerned about tanking, how about instilling a relegation system with the G-League? You end up, let's say, bottom three and you are sent to the small league. You still get your high pick in the NBA draft but you have to fight for one year (or more, depending on your FO ineptitude) to get back to the NBA.
Would they keep their roster of NBA players, because they aren't going to be able to cut their salaries. Would this Developmental League team operate with a $100 million payroll then? What about your ticket prices if you're marketing a minor league team - how do you still pay those players?
How do you tell that team's sponsors and television partners that they're now financial partners with a minor league team rather than an NBA team. What about your major television contracts if suddenly New York, Los Angeles or Chicago becomes a G-League city instead of an NBA one? Is this going to affect your network and cable television contracts?
How would you compensate the team for the loss of value to their billion dollar franchise? And if they're not going to be compensated, what owner in their right mind is going to risk ever losing hundreds of millions of dollars?
This idea is impractical on so many levels.
Author of The Basketball Draft Fact Book: A History of Professional Basketball's College Drafts
Available from Scarecrow Press at - https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780810890695
Available from Scarecrow Press at - https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780810890695
Re: Around the League: The Offseason
This is it.Ring_Wanted wrote:You are probably right.Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:It's fine to me if you guys don't want to trade our various assets, like Bender, or our 1st-rounder, or Jackson, or whatever. But I think it strains credibility a little to claim that offering a lowball package like Bledsoe + future second-rounder or Chandler is even remotely fair value for Kyrie Irving. Now you're just asking Cleveland to give him away. It's okay with me if that is all you would give up; but that is another way of saying you don't want to make a trade for Irving. That is not a fair asking price for a guard of Kyrie's caliber.
At the same time, Bledsoe-Chriss-minor stuff may be a lowball package, but only in a vacuum. Once you look at it within our specific circumstances, it is not that light. For starters, who is offering a better deal? Then, from a player-franchise standpoint, the CBA makes it financial suicide for the player to sign any kind of extension (or exercise his player option for a third year) so you are not getting any long term commitment (and you are not one of the already 'leaked' prefered destinations). Also concerning the fit with Booker.
Yeah, the simple truth is that I don't want to get Kyrie, unless it was so cheap that you just could resist, which of course Cleveland has all the right to reject.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The league needs heroes, villains... and clowns. -- Aztec Sunsfan
Re: Around the League: The Offseason
Agreed.Superbone wrote:I can't say I agree. It's a different situation. We'll be able to pay Booker more than anybody else since we've had him from the beginning. Also, we know he likes it here and we're treating him well as he grows with the rest of the team. For Irving on the other hand, the difference in pay won't be that large and he already said what teams he wants to play for and we're not on his list. We could very well be losing a good player and draft pick for a two year rental. That's probably more likely than him staying. You're comparing apples and oranges in this case.In2ition wrote:I agree with this. The worry about 2 yrs is silly.Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:This "only for 2 years" thing is quite silly. Most contracts nowadays are only for 3-4 years maximum. You will almost never find a star player in a trade who is locked up under contract for more than 2 years. Acting like Kyrie is a "2 year rental" is ridiculous; if almost any player is on a team for 2+ years and is unhappy, he can leave. This literally shouldn't be part of your thought process when it comes to whether we should trade for Kyrie. I'd prefer to talk about the basketball reasons / fit with the team rather than trying to negatively predict things that could happen 2 years down the line with no reason to believe whether they will or won't happen.
If you're so concerned about players leaving the Suns someday, perhaps it's worth it to worry about Booker leaving us after his contract's up because we didn't do what we could to put a good team around him. That's at least as likely, perhaps more, than Kyrie leaving the Suns after 2 years.
There's a big difference between Booker who says "I like it here, I can see myself retiring here" and Irving saying "I want to play in Miami, NY, LA, or GS." Kyrie is showing that he's willing to leave a winning team. Unless you think he's really going to love being part of Watson's family, there is no reason to think he would stick around.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The league needs heroes, villains... and clowns. -- Aztec Sunsfan
Re: Around the League: The Offseason
"There is no reason to think he would stick around."
This strikes me as a particularly negative/defeatist attitude. Why should we ever go after any player, then? Apparently this franchise is a dump and nobody has any reason to ever want to play here.
Teams like Houston and Boston don't think this way. If they want a player, they go after that player and try to get him. They don't wring their hands talking about how the player will desert them and not want to stay.
This strikes me as a particularly negative/defeatist attitude. Why should we ever go after any player, then? Apparently this franchise is a dump and nobody has any reason to ever want to play here.
Teams like Houston and Boston don't think this way. If they want a player, they go after that player and try to get him. They don't wring their hands talking about how the player will desert them and not want to stay.
Re: Around the League: The Offseason
What this all comes down to is do we believe our young guys are going to hit before the two years are up? If they do then we become an attractive destination. If they are still a few years from that then Irving will just walk.
Do we even make the playoffs with Kyrie on the team? The west is brutal right now. Giving up two first round picks for such little return in terms of success seems like a steep price.
The KT trade killed us back in the day. It really messed with our future. If Kyrie walks this ends up with the same sort of cost.
Do we even make the playoffs with Kyrie on the team? The west is brutal right now. Giving up two first round picks for such little return in terms of success seems like a steep price.
The KT trade killed us back in the day. It really messed with our future. If Kyrie walks this ends up with the same sort of cost.
Re: Around the League: The Offseason
We don't make the kinds of trades Boston and Houston make because we're not in the same situation as they are. They're contending. We're timelining.
Besides, do they make a habit of trading away lottery picks for impending FAs? Which franchises built contenders by making trades like this when they were crap?
Besides, do they make a habit of trading away lottery picks for impending FAs? Which franchises built contenders by making trades like this when they were crap?
Re: Around the League: The Offseason
We were trying to be trendsetters... Then we stole the process and renamed it the timeline. Originality is dead.Cap wrote:We don't make the kinds of trades Boston and Houston make because we're not in the same situation as they are. They're contending. We're timelining.
Besides, do they make a habit of trading away lottery picks for impending FAs? Which franchises built contenders by making trades like this when they were crap?
Fire Frank Vogel.
Re: Around the League: The Offseason
Kyrie is not an impending free agent, unless you mean in 2019. In that case though, every player is an impending free agent. We're also not trading away a lottery pick. The talk has been about the Miami 1st and miami is not going to be in the lottery.Cap wrote:We don't make the kinds of trades Boston and Houston make because we're not in the same situation as they are. They're contending. We're timelining.
Besides, do they make a habit of trading away lottery picks for impending FAs? Which franchises built contenders by making trades like this when they were crap?
Kyrie Irving is a 25 year old offensive superstar, he's the exact type of player teams like us should try and get. He should be coming into his prime over the next few years and will stay in that prime for awhile. He fits our timeline, he's better than anything we've got right now and the only pieces of our future we'd have to give up are a SF who probably just got benched for a rookie and a protected 1st round pick that is almost definitely a mid 1st.
I get the not wanting to trade Jackson or our unprotected 1st, but it baffles me mind that some are unwilling to part with Warren or Chriss or Bender/Miami pick.
Re: Around the League: The Offseason
Split T wrote:Kyrie is not an impending free agent, unless you mean in 2019. In that case though, every player is an impending free agent. We're also not trading away a lottery pick. The talk has been about the Miami 1st and miami is not going to be in the lottery.Cap wrote:We don't make the kinds of trades Boston and Houston make because we're not in the same situation as they are. They're contending. We're timelining.
Besides, do they make a habit of trading away lottery picks for impending FAs? Which franchises built contenders by making trades like this when they were crap?
Kyrie Irving is a 25 year old offensive superstar, he's the exact type of player teams like us should try and get. He should be coming into his prime over the next few years and will stay in that prime for awhile. He fits our timeline, he's better than anything we've got right now and the only pieces of our future we'd have to give up are a SF who probably just got benched for a rookie and a protected 1st round pick that is almost definitely a mid 1st.
I get the not wanting to trade Jackson or our unprotected 1st, but it baffles me mind that some are unwilling to part with Warren or Chriss or Bender/Miami pick.
Some fans are happier being miserable and complaining about everything. You'll never progress without taking some lumps, whether it be in trades, the draft, or free agency. Chances are that nobody on this roster will be as good as Kyrie is now, that includes the golden child Booker. If we have a shot to acquire a premium talent, we should do it. Can't sit on rookies or young kids hoping to turn into the Warriors, that's an aberration.
Fire Frank Vogel.
Re: Around the League: The Offseason
That looks like a good signature to me!Cap wrote:We don't make the kinds of trades Boston and Houston make because we're not in the same situation as they are. They're contending. We're timelining.
"Be Legendary."
Re: Around the League: The Offseason
For the record, I'd be okay with Bleds/Warren/Miami, especially if we can add a little more protection to the pick.Split T wrote:Kyrie is not an impending free agent, unless you mean in 2019. In that case though, every player is an impending free agent. We're also not trading away a lottery pick. The talk has been about the Miami 1st and miami is not going to be in the lottery.Cap wrote:We don't make the kinds of trades Boston and Houston make because we're not in the same situation as they are. They're contending. We're timelining.
Besides, do they make a habit of trading away lottery picks for impending FAs? Which franchises built contenders by making trades like this when they were crap?
Kyrie Irving is a 25 year old offensive superstar, he's the exact type of player teams like us should try and get. He should be coming into his prime over the next few years and will stay in that prime for awhile. He fits our timeline, he's better than anything we've got right now and the only pieces of our future we'd have to give up are a SF who probably just got benched for a rookie and a protected 1st round pick that is almost definitely a mid 1st.
I get the not wanting to trade Jackson or our unprotected 1st, but it baffles me mind that some are unwilling to part with Warren or Chriss or Bender/Miami pick.
Re: Around the League: The Offseason
Good to knowCap wrote:For the record, I'd be okay with Bleds/Warren/Miami, especially if we can add a little more protection to the pick.Split T wrote:Kyrie is not an impending free agent, unless you mean in 2019. In that case though, every player is an impending free agent. We're also not trading away a lottery pick. The talk has been about the Miami 1st and miami is not going to be in the lottery.Cap wrote:We don't make the kinds of trades Boston and Houston make because we're not in the same situation as they are. They're contending. We're timelining.
Besides, do they make a habit of trading away lottery picks for impending FAs? Which franchises built contenders by making trades like this when they were crap?
Kyrie Irving is a 25 year old offensive superstar, he's the exact type of player teams like us should try and get. He should be coming into his prime over the next few years and will stay in that prime for awhile. He fits our timeline, he's better than anything we've got right now and the only pieces of our future we'd have to give up are a SF who probably just got benched for a rookie and a protected 1st round pick that is almost definitely a mid 1st.
I get the not wanting to trade Jackson or our unprotected 1st, but it baffles me mind that some are unwilling to part with Warren or Chriss or Bender/Miami pick.
- Aztec Sunsfan
- Posts: 1880
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:56 pm
Re: Around the League: The Offseason
From the creators ofTheOriginalOriginal wrote: Some fans are happier being miserable and complaining about everything. You'll never progress without taking some lumps, whether it be in trades, the draft, or free agency. Chances are that nobody on this roster will be as good as Kyrie is now, that includes the golden child Booker. If we have a shot to acquire a premium talent, we should do it. Can't sit on rookies or young kids hoping to turn into the Warriors, that's an aberration.
"He does not move the needle enough"
and
"It would require to gut our team to trade for him"
directly on your screen comes
"He is likely to leave in TWO years"
TIMELINE The series
I can't think of an single player that can't be dissmissed under any of this asumptions, so let's keep on drafting forever, dreaming about potential and dissing current player's flawed games as unworthy to play with our current All-Stars-in-the-making rookies, or wasting one of our future Hall-of-famers-to-be-drafted draft picks. To do this comes with an extra bonus: Our own drafted players, sooner or later are due for extensions, so we can add to the mix, discussions on how former Lottery pick is better left unsigned, or not worthy of an extension (i.e. Len and Warren), making them unworthy (again) to stay in the Holy Timeline.
Re: Around the League: The Offseason
By the way, I think we may be underestimating the value of Bledsoe in this trade.
Irving is the younger, better player, but the gulf isn't huge, and given the fit with Cavs (not to mention the personal relationship with LeBron), Irving-to-Bledsoe may actually be an upgrade for them, in the sense that a straight-up swap would make them a better team. Add in Warren and a pick, and it's a pretty sweet deal for a disgruntled star who has said he won't likely stay with his new team. In a "forced to trade" situation, if they make a trade that makes them better immediately and brings a #1 pick, they've done very well for themselves. If we give up any more, we got outnegotiated.
ETA: By the numbers,
Irving is the younger, better player, but the gulf isn't huge, and given the fit with Cavs (not to mention the personal relationship with LeBron), Irving-to-Bledsoe may actually be an upgrade for them, in the sense that a straight-up swap would make them a better team. Add in Warren and a pick, and it's a pretty sweet deal for a disgruntled star who has said he won't likely stay with his new team. In a "forced to trade" situation, if they make a trade that makes them better immediately and brings a #1 pick, they've done very well for themselves. If we give up any more, we got outnegotiated.
ETA: By the numbers,
Code: Select all
Per 36:
Player Season FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% 2P 2PA 2P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
Bledsoe 2016-17 7.4 17.1 .434 1.7 5.1 .335 5.7 12.0 .477 6.4 7.6 .847 0.9 4.4 5.3 6.9 1.5 0.5 3.7 2.7 23.0
Irving 2016-17 9.6 20.2 .473 2.5 6.3 .401 7.0 14.0 .505 4.2 4.7 .905 0.7 2.5 3.3 6.0 1.2 0.3 2.6 2.2 25.9
Advanced:
Player PER TS% 3PAr FTr ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% OWS DWS WS WS/48 OBPM DBPM BPM VORP
Bledsoe 20.5 .563 .300 .443 2.5 13.8 8.0 31.1 2.0 1.2 15.3 28.1 4.0 1.4 5.3 .118 3.7 -0.4 3.3 2.9
Irving 23.0 .580 .311 .231 2.3 7.5 5.0 29.7 1.6 0.8 10.3 30.8 7.4 1.5 8.9 .170 4.8 -2.3 2.5 2.9