Phx-Suns.Net

I don't doubt that right now, he's thinking he'll go where he wants (NY?) in 2 years. But again, A LOT can happen in 2 years. If we trade for him, it's on us to do everything we can to keep him and make him realize Phoenix is the team and guys like Booker/Chriss/Bender/JJ are better than what the Knicks or some other team have to offer.

bIGDRAWLS0072 wrote:We can always re-trade Kyrie next year if he doesn't want to stay.

I'd rather just avoid having to do that altogether.

It feels like the national media guys are trying to get the most out of Phx for this supposed trade. I've seen a number of articles trying to convince everyone that Bledsoe, Jackson and 1st round pick is equal value and a fair trade for Irving. Idk if they are invested in some way to make sure that Cleveland is still the best team in the East or what it is. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I think this article sums up my feelings fairly well.

https://hoopshabit.com/2017/08/02/5-rea ... ing-trade/

I don't get the writers and many other writers pov where Jackson HAS to be included, no trade is going to happen without Jackson, and they wouldn't accept Warren. Not that I want to give up Warren, but they are asking for a young wing on a rookie contract. Warren is a young wing on a rookie contract, and he would much more than make up for the offense you are giving up trading Irving for Bledsoe, plus he's a plus defender now. Warren is a better player right now than Jackson, and he would be a fantastic fit next to LeBron. The ball quickly leaves his hands and he's a master in the midrange and around the rim, a very unorthodox shot maker and very hard to defend. IMO, Bledsoe and Warren is more than fair value for Irving, and adding a 1st is a HUGE win for Cleveland. I'm do not like the idea of helping Cleveland quickly rebuild after LeBron leaves, nor do I care if they stay on top of the East this year or beyond. I feel it's Cleveland that will blink first and they are the ones with the pressure on them to make a trade. I'm not convinced that the Suns will be better in the short term and possibly the long term, with a trade like this.

Messed up that update.

In2ition wrote:I don't get the writers and many other writers pov where Jackson HAS to be included, no trade is going to happen without Jackson, and they wouldn't accept Warren. Not that I want to give up Warren, but they are asking for a young wing on a rookie contract. Warren is a young wing on a rookie contract, and he would much more than make up for the offense you are giving up trading Irving for Bledsoe, plus he's a plus defender now. Warren is a better player right now than Jackson, and he would be a fantastic fit next to LeBron. The ball quickly leaves his hands and he's a master in the midrange and around the rim, a very unorthodox shot maker and very hard to defend. IMO, Bledsoe and Warren is more than fair value for Irving, and adding a 1st is a HUGE win for Cleveland. I'm do not like the idea of helping Cleveland quickly rebuild after LeBron leaves, nor do I care if they stay on top of the East this year or beyond.

Remember when the Wolves wanted to trade Kevin Love to the Warriors and the deal fell through because the Wolves demanded Klay Thompson be included? That is where we are. We cannot give up Jackson. We just cannot. Its about defense.

JCSunsfan wrote:

In2ition wrote:I don't get the writers and many other writers pov where Jackson HAS to be included, no trade is going to happen without Jackson, and they wouldn't accept Warren. Not that I want to give up Warren, but they are asking for a young wing on a rookie contract. Warren is a young wing on a rookie contract, and he would much more than make up for the offense you are giving up trading Irving for Bledsoe, plus he's a plus defender now. Warren is a better player right now than Jackson, and he would be a fantastic fit next to LeBron. The ball quickly leaves his hands and he's a master in the midrange and around the rim, a very unorthodox shot maker and very hard to defend. IMO, Bledsoe and Warren is more than fair value for Irving, and adding a 1st is a HUGE win for Cleveland. I'm do not like the idea of helping Cleveland quickly rebuild after LeBron leaves, nor do I care if they stay on top of the East this year or beyond.

Remember when the Wolves wanted to trade Kevin Love to the Warriors and the deal fell through because the Wolves demanded Klay Thompson be included? That is where we are. We cannot give up Jackson. We just cannot. Its about defense.

Yup and yup. I just hope our FO is on the same page.

JCSunsfan wrote:

In2ition wrote:I don't get the writers and many other writers pov where Jackson HAS to be included, no trade is going to happen without Jackson, and they wouldn't accept Warren. Not that I want to give up Warren, but they are asking for a young wing on a rookie contract. Warren is a young wing on a rookie contract, and he would much more than make up for the offense you are giving up trading Irving for Bledsoe, plus he's a plus defender now. Warren is a better player right now than Jackson, and he would be a fantastic fit next to LeBron. The ball quickly leaves his hands and he's a master in the midrange and around the rim, a very unorthodox shot maker and very hard to defend. IMO, Bledsoe and Warren is more than fair value for Irving, and adding a 1st is a HUGE win for Cleveland. I'm do not like the idea of helping Cleveland quickly rebuild after LeBron leaves, nor do I care if they stay on top of the East this year or beyond.

Remember when the Wolves wanted to trade Kevin Love to the Warriors and the deal fell through because the Wolves demanded Klay Thompson be included? That is where we are. We cannot give up Jackson. We just cannot. Its about defense.

I totally agree. I honestly wish that Melo would welcome a trade to Cleveland and then get in on a trade that ultimately brings back Ntilikina and a NY 1st unprotected. That builds up assets at each position and gives defensive versatility along with more changes to get a top 5 player in this next year's draft. Then still enough assets to make trades and cap space to sign FAs next year.

Also, let's not forget, Kyrie wants his own team. This team is Devin Booker's team, he's the Alpha male on this team.

iLLmatic wrote:Also, let's not forget, Kyrie wants his own team. This team is Devin Booker's team, he's the Alpha male on this team.

And their skills are the same, minus the ball handling in Booker's case.
I rather have someone who make up for the lack of defense.

I'd laugh my @$$ off if the deal ended up being only Bled & Dudley for Irving & Frye.

Hey guys--I have been traveling in Europe the last 12 days and completely disconnected. Anything interesting happening on the Suns front?

Indy wrote:Hey guys--I have been traveling in Europe the last 12 days and completely disconnected. Anything interesting happening on the Suns front?

Haha, welcome back!

In2ition wrote:I'd laugh my @$$ off if the deal ended up being only Bled & Dudley for Irving & Frye.

You wouldn't be the only one laughing if that happened, but it won't. The Cavs would rather keep a disgruntled Kyrie than make that trade.

Cap wrote:

In2ition wrote:I'd laugh my @$$ off if the deal ended up being only Bled & Dudley for Irving & Frye.

You wouldn't be the only one laughing if that happened, but it won't. The Cavs would rather keep a disgruntled Kyrie than make that trade.

Honestly, it's not looking that way more and more. It's becoming harder and harder for that to be an option. Kyrie and Steph making fun of LeBron, LeBron "reportedly" saying he would beat his @$$, LeBron reportedly wanting Bledsoe, and local news stations putting out anti Kyrie promos and ads, etc...

I can't think of a good deal for us with just Cleveland. I don't think a Kyrie/Booker back court will work for us. We may win more games next year, but not a ton more, and certainly won't be on a path to be a contender. I am all for helping them get rid of Kyrie and us change out Bled for something else. But we don't need a scoring ISO PG that doesn't play defense.

Indy wrote:I can't think of a good deal for us with just Cleveland. I don't think a Kyrie/Booker back court will work for us. We may win more games next year, but not a ton more, and certainly won't be on a path to be a contender. I am all for helping them get rid of Kyrie and us change out Bled for something else. But we don't need a scoring ISO PG that doesn't play defense.

That would be my choice.

Indy wrote:I can't think of a good deal for us with just Cleveland. I don't think a Kyrie/Booker back court will work for us. We may win more games next year, but not a ton more, and certainly won't be on a path to be a contender. I am all for helping them get rid of Kyrie and us change out Bled for something else. But we don't need a scoring ISO PG that doesn't play defense.

So, you wouldn't do it for Bled, Warren or Chriss, and the 2019 Miami pick top 10 protected?

Superbone wrote:

Indy wrote:I can't think of a good deal for us with just Cleveland. I don't think a Kyrie/Booker back court will work for us. We may win more games next year, but not a ton more, and certainly won't be on a path to be a contender. I am all for helping them get rid of Kyrie and us change out Bled for something else. But we don't need a scoring ISO PG that doesn't play defense.

So, you wouldn't do it for Bled, Warren or Chriss, and the 2019 Miami pick top 10 protected?

They want Josh Jackson.