Phx-Suns.Net

I feel like if Steve Nash was in his prime and also 25 years old and requested a trade, people here would want to pass on making an offer because A) he's not a good defender and B) he needs the ball in his hands and so does Booker.

Superbone wrote:

Aztec Sunsfan wrote:I would expect that Booker grows into a decent defender given the big help on offense arriving, so him and JJ can hide Kyrie. Bledsoe, Chriss and the Miami pick are not going to get a ut a two-way All Star, is not about giving up assets, but how much of them for any given player AVAILABLE. Th only thing about Kyrie at this price that turns me off is his lack of commitment, a two year rental is not what we need right now. Cleveland lost a lot of leverage after those comments and hopefully our FO make them pay for it, we are in no hurry to add a rental-Kyrie or trade Bledsoe, even if this turns out to be his highest value point.

And he has already come out and said he won't commit to a team.

Why should he?

Shabazz wrote:

Superbone wrote:

Aztec Sunsfan wrote:I would expect that Booker grows into a decent defender given the big help on offense arriving, so him and JJ can hide Kyrie. Bledsoe, Chriss and the Miami pick are not going to get a ut a two-way All Star, is not about giving up assets, but how much of them for any given player AVAILABLE. Th only thing about Kyrie at this price that turns me off is his lack of commitment, a two year rental is not what we need right now. Cleveland lost a lot of leverage after those comments and hopefully our FO make them pay for it, we are in no hurry to add a rental-Kyrie or trade Bledsoe, even if this turns out to be his highest value point.

And he has already come out and said he won't commit to a team.

Why should he?

It's up to him. But if he won't commit to us, that seriously limits his value to us. 2.5 years from now, are we going to be wishing we had Chriss and the pick back, or are we going to be glad that they're in Cleveland and we have our memories of two years with Kyrie?

Cap wrote:

Shabazz wrote:

Superbone wrote:

Aztec Sunsfan wrote:I would expect that Booker grows into a decent defender given the big help on offense arriving, so him and JJ can hide Kyrie. Bledsoe, Chriss and the Miami pick are not going to get a ut a two-way All Star, is not about giving up assets, but how much of them for any given player AVAILABLE. Th only thing about Kyrie at this price that turns me off is his lack of commitment, a two year rental is not what we need right now. Cleveland lost a lot of leverage after those comments and hopefully our FO make them pay for it, we are in no hurry to add a rental-Kyrie or trade Bledsoe, even if this turns out to be his highest value point.

And he has already come out and said he won't commit to a team.

Why should he?

It's up to him. But if he won't commit to us, that seriously limits his value to us. 2.5 years from now, are we going to be wishing we had Chriss and the pick back, or are we going to be glad that they're in Cleveland and we have our memories of two years with Kyrie?

We will flip him to someone he'll sign with. We'll get picks back and role players, same thing we'll get when we eventually flip Bledsoe. Maybe (probably) NY will have a horrible year and they'll be ready to flip Porzingis. Sure would be nice to have Kyrie when/if that happens.

Let me ask people this - assuming we keep Bledsoe what would you all like to see happen with him? If this is what Kyrie is fetching what will Bledsoe get us? We can say/think what we want but Kyrie is considered the better player and he's younger. He'd offer more both as a player and as a trade piece.

AbeVroman wrote:

Superbone wrote:

Aztec Sunsfan wrote:I would expect that Booker grows into a decent defender given the big help on offense arriving, so him and JJ can hide Kyrie. Bledsoe, Chriss and the Miami pick are not going to get a ut a two-way All Star, is not about giving up assets, but how much of them for any given player AVAILABLE. Th only thing about Kyrie at this price that turns me off is his lack of commitment, a two year rental is not what we need right now. Cleveland lost a lot of leverage after those comments and hopefully our FO make them pay for it, we are in no hurry to add a rental-Kyrie or trade Bledsoe, even if this turns out to be his highest value point.

And he has already come out and said he won't commit to a team.

This just doesn't bother me the way it seems to bother a lot of people. We have the same issue right now with Bledsoe so what's the difference? If we can do this without sacrificing Jackson this is a no brainer for me.

If Kyrie won't commit by next year then we flip him to one of the teams that he will sign with via sign and trade. I've got to believe he'd fetch more than Bledsoe anyway so he's a better trade chip to have.

I agree that we want him at a cheep enough price, but as this drags on, I'm less and less confident that Kyrie is a big trade commodity. If nobody else is willing to give up a lot right now, they aren't going to give up more for him next season unless we are VERY savy.

AbeVroman wrote:

Cap wrote:

Shabazz wrote:

Superbone wrote:

Aztec Sunsfan wrote:I would expect that Booker grows into a decent defender given the big help on offense arriving, so him and JJ can hide Kyrie. Bledsoe, Chriss and the Miami pick are not going to get a ut a two-way All Star, is not about giving up assets, but how much of them for any given player AVAILABLE. Th only thing about Kyrie at this price that turns me off is his lack of commitment, a two year rental is not what we need right now. Cleveland lost a lot of leverage after those comments and hopefully our FO make them pay for it, we are in no hurry to add a rental-Kyrie or trade Bledsoe, even if this turns out to be his highest value point.

And he has already come out and said he won't commit to a team.

Why should he?

It's up to him. But if he won't commit to us, that seriously limits his value to us. 2.5 years from now, are we going to be wishing we had Chriss and the pick back, or are we going to be glad that they're in Cleveland and we have our memories of two years with Kyrie?

We will flip him to someone he'll sign with. We'll get picks back and role players, same thing we'll get when we eventually flip Bledsoe. Maybe (probably) NY will have a horrible year and they'll be ready to flip Porzingis. Sure would be nice to have Kyrie when/if that happens.

Let me ask people this - assuming we keep Bledsoe what would you all like to see happen with him? If this is what Kyrie is fetching what will Bledsoe get us? We can say/think what we want but Kyrie is considered the better player and he's younger. He'd offer more both as a player and as a trade piece.

If the trade were Bledsoe for Irving straight up, everybody would be on board with it. What we arguing about is the wisdom of trading away long-term assets for two years of Kyrie.

Assuming we can flip him next year without taking a loss is very optimistic, and probably unrealistic. Everybody's talking about how Cleveland is over a barrel now. We'll be even more over the barrel next year if Kyrie tells us, "You can either trade me where I want to go now, or let me play out the year and I'll go there as a free agent."

AbeVroman wrote:We will flip him to someone he'll sign with. We'll get picks back and role players, same thing we'll get when we eventually flip Bledsoe. Maybe (probably) NY will have a horrible year and they'll be ready to flip Porzingis. Sure would be nice to have Kyrie when/if that happens.

That ship has sailed. We're not getting Porzingis. As soon as Phil left NY, that dream ended.

Shabazz wrote:I feel like if Steve Nash was in his prime and also 25 years old and requested a trade, people here would want to pass on making an offer because A) he's not a good defender and B) he needs the ball in his hands and so does Booker.

Don't forget that, in the actual deal, Steve wouldn't fit the #Timeline!!!

Cap wrote:

Shabazz wrote:

Superbone wrote:

Aztec Sunsfan wrote:I would expect that Booker grows into a decent defender given the big help on offense arriving, so him and JJ can hide Kyrie. Bledsoe, Chriss and the Miami pick are not going to get a ut a two-way All Star, is not about giving up assets, but how much of them for any given player AVAILABLE. Th only thing about Kyrie at this price that turns me off is his lack of commitment, a two year rental is not what we need right now. Cleveland lost a lot of leverage after those comments and hopefully our FO make them pay for it, we are in no hurry to add a rental-Kyrie or trade Bledsoe, even if this turns out to be his highest value point.

And he has already come out and said he won't commit to a team.

Why should he?

It's up to him. But if he won't commit to us, that seriously limits his value to us. 2.5 years from now, are we going to be wishing we had Chriss and the pick back, or are we going to be glad that they're in Cleveland and we have our memories of two years with Kyrie?

The team would have 2 years to make a compelling case to Kyrie for why he should extend/re-sign with us. Expecting a player to commit to us before he's spent a minute with the organization is a little unreasonable.

And I'm fine with Chriss and a mid 1st round pick being the cost of the experiment.

Shabazz wrote:

Cap wrote:

Shabazz wrote:

Superbone wrote:

Aztec Sunsfan wrote:I would expect that Booker grows into a decent defender given the big help on offense arriving, so him and JJ can hide Kyrie. Bledsoe, Chriss and the Miami pick are not going to get a ut a two-way All Star, is not about giving up assets, but how much of them for any given player AVAILABLE. Th only thing about Kyrie at this price that turns me off is his lack of commitment, a two year rental is not what we need right now. Cleveland lost a lot of leverage after those comments and hopefully our FO make them pay for it, we are in no hurry to add a rental-Kyrie or trade Bledsoe, even if this turns out to be his highest value point.

And he has already come out and said he won't commit to a team.

Why should he?

It's up to him. But if he won't commit to us, that seriously limits his value to us. 2.5 years from now, are we going to be wishing we had Chriss and the pick back, or are we going to be glad that they're in Cleveland and we have our memories of two years with Kyrie?

The team would have 2 years to make a compelling case to Kyrie for why he should extend/re-sign with us. Expecting a player to commit to us before he's spent a minute with the organization is a little unreasonable.

And I'm fine with Chriss and a mid 1st round pick being the cost of the experiment.

This, and nothing more, you are saying it the best, is the price for an experiment, not a building block, nor an asset.

To me what I keep coming back to is, if we don't do this trade, what are the odds that we become a good team in the next 2-3 years? And if we do make it, what are those odds?

My assessment/prediction is that if we don't do the trade, we will still not be a playoff/good team 2-3 years from now. We will be better, most likely. But we will still have holes and a team that isn't close to contention.

If, however, we do the trade, I see potential that we could get back to being a good team. We would have one of the best backcourts in the league, and a bunch of young promising pieces in the frontcourt, and everybody would be young enough that they can grow and get better together. To me the higher ceiling makes the trade worth it.

Also, why is everybody so worried about Kyrie not commiting to us / leaving us if we trade for him? If we really think this is a good team that players should want to play for, why do we get such cold feet about wanting a good player to come here? That's like not asking out somebody you like because you think they'd have a bad time with you and just dump you. 2 years is plenty of time to give a player a chance to see our team/org and decide whether it's right for him. Or if it isn't, we trade him during the second year and get nice assets in return. What is the downside? And why are we so quick to assume that our team stinks to the point that any talented player will want to run away after 2 years? Why so pessimistic about the allure of our own franchise? When are you ever going to get more than 2 years to convince a star player to stick with your team?

Shabazz wrote:I feel like if Steve Nash was in his prime and also 25 years old and requested a trade, people here would want to pass on making an offer because A) he's not a good defender and B) he needs the ball in his hands and so does Booker.

#13's 25 year old season.

8.6 ppg, 4.9 assists, 2.2 rebounds, .477 fg, .403 3pt, .882 ft, 1.8 TO (27.4 mpg), poor defense

I will admit. I was worried Steve was too old and too injury prone when we signed him away from the Mavs. Marc Cuban thought so too.

Cap wrote:

AbeVroman wrote:

Cap wrote:

Shabazz wrote:

Superbone wrote: And he has already come out and said he won't commit to a team.

Why should he?

It's up to him. But if he won't commit to us, that seriously limits his value to us. 2.5 years from now, are we going to be wishing we had Chriss and the pick back, or are we going to be glad that they're in Cleveland and we have our memories of two years with Kyrie?

We will flip him to someone he'll sign with. We'll get picks back and role players, same thing we'll get when we eventually flip Bledsoe. Maybe (probably) NY will have a horrible year and they'll be ready to flip Porzingis. Sure would be nice to have Kyrie when/if that happens.

Let me ask people this - assuming we keep Bledsoe what would you all like to see happen with him? If this is what Kyrie is fetching what will Bledsoe get us? We can say/think what we want but Kyrie is considered the better player and he's younger. He'd offer more both as a player and as a trade piece.

If the trade were Bledsoe for Irving straight up, everybody would be on board with it. What we arguing about is the wisdom of trading away long-term assets for two years of Kyrie.

Assuming we can flip him next year without taking a loss is very optimistic, and probably unrealistic. Everybody's talking about how Cleveland is over a barrel now. We'll be even more over the barrel next year if Kyrie tells us, "You can either trade me where I want to go now, or let me play out the year and I'll go there as a free agent."

And I think that's the rub - I don't view anyone other than Jackson and Booker as a long term asset. Warren is what he is. Maybe Chriss will get it but I don't think he'll ever be that special. Jury out on Bender since we really haven't seen that much but anyone think he's Porzingis? There is nothing else. The cupboard is bare besides the picks - Bledsoe is effectively a rental at this point and will fetch less than Kyrie this year or next, whenever we deal him.

I think there is tremendous value in having Kyrie and being able to do a sign and trade. Say Minny has a sort of lackluster year and determines he's the guy. Maybe by next year they're willing to give up Teague, Dieng and/or picks if they know Kyrie will commit long term. I don't know - but maybe. Nobody knows the future.

JCSunsfan wrote:

Shabazz wrote:I feel like if Steve Nash was in his prime and also 25 years old and requested a trade, people here would want to pass on making an offer because A) he's not a good defender and B) he needs the ball in his hands and so does Booker.

#13's 25 year old season.

8.6 ppg, 4.9 assists, 2.2 rebounds, .477 fg, .403 3pt, .882 ft, 1.8 TO (27.4 mpg), poor defense

I will admit. I was worried Steve was too old and too injury prone when we signed him away from the Mavs. Marc Cuban thought so too.

This was a fictional Steve Nash for my fictional hypothetical. If i would have just said "in his prime" Nash, then he wouldn't have fit the holy Timeline.

The Timeline is holy now? Cool!

Holy Timeline, Batman!

Shabazz wrote:I feel like if Steve Nash was in his prime and also 25 years old and requested a trade, people here would want to pass on making an offer because A) he's not a good defender and B) he needs the ball in his hands and so does Booker.

A) is valid
B) is not valid. Nash needed the ball in his hands so he could pass it to a teammate as the league's assist leader

anyway, it is feasible to take kyrie now and trade him before he leaves and still make out fine
it's all contingent on what it costs. as long as booker and jackson are safe, i'd consider a trade

but after much reading, i believe my preference would be to keep bledsoe, unless a trade results in a young point guard prospect like Fox

Marty [Mori Chu] wrote:Also, why is everybody so worried about Kyrie not commiting to us / leaving us if we trade for him? If we really think this is a good team that players should want to play for, why do we get such cold feet about wanting a good player to come here? That's like not asking out somebody you like because you think they'd have a bad time with you and just dump you. 2 years is plenty of time to give a player a chance to see our team/org and decide whether it's right for him. Or if it isn't, we trade him during the second year and get nice assets in return. What is the downside? And why are we so quick to assume that our team stinks to the point that any talented player will want to run away after 2 years? Why so pessimistic about the allure of our own franchise? When are you ever going to get more than 2 years to convince a star player to stick with your team?

I'm just saying that in any trade, two years is all we're getting, and we can't really project any value from the trade beyond that.

Maybe he'll fit in great. Maybe he'll have a positive non-LeBron plus/minus for the first time in his career. Maybe he'll be happy, re-sign, and play at a level well worth the $35M/yr we'll be paying him.

But you're paying for an awful lot of maybe's, and not even considering the maybe's that can go right in the alternative scenario. (Maybe we'll get an awesome PG in the next couple of drafts and leave no room for Kyrie. Maybe we'll get Kyrie, or a comparable player, or a better fit, in free agency. Etc.)

This isn't a time for investing heavily in the next two years. This is a time for investing in the long term. It's not like Kyrie is an MVP candidate, or the missing piece that's going to make a championship contender, or even a playoff contender. He's not even a lock to make the All-Star team in the West. How much do you really want to invest in the chance that maybe we'll have the opportunity to re-sign this marginal All-Star for $35M/yr?

Shabazz wrote:

JCSunsfan wrote:

Shabazz wrote:I feel like if Steve Nash was in his prime and also 25 years old and requested a trade, people here would want to pass on making an offer because A) he's not a good defender and B) he needs the ball in his hands and so does Booker.

#13's 25 year old season.

8.6 ppg, 4.9 assists, 2.2 rebounds, .477 fg, .403 3pt, .882 ft, 1.8 TO (27.4 mpg), poor defense

I will admit. I was worried Steve was too old and too injury prone when we signed him away from the Mavs. Marc Cuban thought so too.

This was a fictional Steve Nash for my fictional hypothetical. If i would have just said "in his prime" Nash, then he wouldn't have fit the holy Timeline.

Steve Nash was an anomaly. One of the very few (only?) to continue to get better after 30.

Cap wrote:This isn't a time for investing heavily in the next two years. This is a time for investing in the long term. It's not like Kyrie is an MVP candidate, or the missing piece that's going to make a championship contender, or even a playoff contender. He's not even a lock to make the All-Star team in the West. How much do you really want to invest in the chance that maybe we'll have the opportunity to re-sign this marginal All-Star for $35M/yr?

This is a GREAT point! Well done. That sums up the situation in a nutshell.