2017-2018 Boston Celtics: No Irving! No Hayward! No Brooklyn Pick!

[vanderhagen]

New Woj Article:
Cavs' goal of Kyrie Irving trade tied to fear of losing LeBron James

As the Cleveland Cavaliers deliberate on deals to move All-Star guard Kyrie Irving, the franchise is operating under a self-prescribed mandate: Presume a future without LeBron James.

Cleveland isn't giving up on the possibility of re-signing James next summer, but it is no longer investing blind faith in the hope he will stay. For James, a reluctance to commit comes with an emerging set of complications. Beyond Irving's decision to ask for a trade, Cleveland has determined that it's unwilling to simply be reactive to James' possible departure

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20343088/lebron-future-impacts-cavaliers-kyrie-irving-trades

 

[BrutX15]

How do people not make a bigger deal about this?

Nobody walks away from 50-70mil.

I'm willing to bet he comes back, and in 2 years, signs the max with us THEN asks for a trade.

It is not nearly that much. Only if he makes an All-NBA team, and given he plays the PG position, that is a slim to none chance. So it's actually about 30 mil, but is based around the extra year they get from staying with their team. Players walk from that all the time. Durant would have gotten the max but he walked. Kyrie would be in Hayward's shoes, not making an all-nba team, but still walked.

 

[buzzdog]

This is why I said in another thread that the Cavs could retain Irving if we're willing to make him the focal point of the team's offense. If he put up 22-23 FGA (I know that's a lot), played 36 MPG, and had at least 10 additional sets run with him as the primary playmaker generating a another 2 APG.. This would all but guarantee Irving making All-NBA, and with that many attempts, he'd very likely win scoring champ.

Do all those things and Irving gets the DPE next offseason and this becomes a distant memory.

I see this as losing basketball. At least, based on how we've played in the past few years, that's what I've seen when we try to force feed Kyrie, and play a style of offense that is out of balance and too heavily dependent on Kyrie. Hell, Kyrie got tons of touches before Lebron came back, and we were a dismal failure of a team. Even with better talent it just doesn't work.

I want to see the Cavs play winning basketball with lots of ball movement, lots of player movement, the ball jumping around and lots of players touching the ball. Running offensive sets where Kyrie is ball dominant kills all of that.

 

[Kouki]

I see this as losing basketball. At least, based on how we've played in the past few years, that's what I've seen when we try to force feed Kyrie, and play a style of offense that is out of balance and too heavily dependent on Kyrie. Hell, Kyrie got tons of touches before Lebron came back, and we were a dismal failure of a team. Even with better talent it just doesn't work.

I want to see the Cavs play winning basketball with lots of ball movement, lots of player movement, the ball jumping around and lots of players touching the ball. Running offensive sets where Kyrie is ball dominant kills all of that.

And we will never learn to do that unless we learn to play without LeBron.

 

[buzzdog]

And we will never learn to do that unless we learn to play without LeBron.

Playing a brand of basketball that is completely dependent on one player out of five doesn't work whether that one player is Kyrie or Lebron.

 

[Funkmastabuck]

Man, that Woj article. What a downer!

Essentially, the Cavs originally thought a Kyrie trade could yield veteran assets to help win now and a young core piece to help win in the future. Now they may be realizing that Kyrie isn't yielding that sort of return, so the Cavs need to decide between winning this season or building for the future. And that could mean the exit of LeBron.

 

[RDriesen]

New Woj Article:
Cavs' goal of Kyrie Irving trade tied to fear of losing LeBron James

As the Cleveland Cavaliers deliberate on deals to move All-Star guard Kyrie Irving, the franchise is operating under a self-prescribed mandate: Presume a future without LeBron James.

Cleveland isn't giving up on the possibility of re-signing James next summer, but it is no longer investing blind faith in the hope he will stay. For James, a reluctance to commit comes with an emerging set of complications. Beyond Irving's decision to ask for a trade, Cleveland has determined that it's unwilling to simply be reactive to James' possible departure

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20343088/lebron-future-impacts-cavaliers-kyrie-irving-trades

That is exactly what they should be doing.

 

[wremy]

Man, that Woj article. What a downer!

Essentially, the Cavs originally thought a Kyrie trade could yield veteran assets to help win now and a young core piece to help win in the future. Now they may be realizing that Kyrie isn't yielding that sort of return, so the Cavs need to decide between winning this season or building for the future. And that could mean the exit of LeBron.

You are reading that wrong...it is just saying they want a young piece back in a deal and those are the 4 young guys they covet... For example JJ and Bledsoe plus pick .. Murray Chandler and pick ... Kyler wrote article saying Cavs would want Tatum and Brown both for instance... Porzingis would be the youth and veteran IMO though in that deal... Best player of that group

But it isn't what you think ... Just rehashing old takes with a tiny bit of new info

 

[sailfish]

Man, that Woj article. What a downer!

Essentially, the Cavs originally thought a Kyrie trade could yield veteran assets to help win now and a young core piece to help win in the future. Now they may be realizing that Kyrie isn't yielding that sort of return, so the Cavs need to decide between winning this season or building for the future. And that could mean the exit of LeBron.

I am actually encouraged by that article. It means that Dan Gilbert learned his lesson when LeBron 'took his talents to South Beach.' Without a long-term commitment from LeBron (even if there's a verbal one), the Cavs just cannot afford to cater to him and assume that he's going to be here beyond this season. In fact, assuming that he's leaving is absolutely the right approach.

Building for the future is also made easier by the juggernaut out west, known as the Golden State Warriors. Barring injury or trades, no one is beating that team in a seven game series for the foreseeable future.

 

[NMCav]

I am actually encouraged by that article. It means that Dan Gilbert learned his lesson when LeBron 'took his talents to South Beach.' Without a long-term commitment from LeBron (even if there's a verbal one), the Cavs just cannot afford to cater to him and assume that he's going to be here beyond this season. In fact, assuming that he's leaving is absolutely the right approach.

Building for the future is also made easier by the juggernaut out west, known as the Golden State Warriors. Barring injury or trades, no one is beating that team in a seven game series for the foreseeable future.

Well until Klay leaves which I think is a real possibility because out of all of them I could see him wanting the chance to be the star instead of 3rd or 4th fiddle. And losing Klay would be a huge loss for the warriors imo.

 

[Chris Parker]

You are reading that wrong...it is just saying they want a young piece back in a deal and those are the 4 young guys they covet... For example JJ and Bledsoe plus pick .. Murray Chandler and pick ... Kyler wrote article saying Cavs would want Tatum and Brown both for instance... Porzingis would be the youth and veteran IMO though in that deal... Best player of that group

But it isn't what you think ... Just rehashing old takes with a tiny bit of new info

I think your take is just a take on that information, I'm with the Funk and think it's now either/or, based on that last bit about they used to think they could get both. Look at what PG and Butler netted. Now they're just going to make it about the future. And this was clearly a management-fueled article, so the've put it on LeBron - if you want to trade for your staying, you have to commit, otherwise we're planning for the future. It's almost like a challenge to the LeBron camp.

The article really also seemed to portray the Cavs as more open to a Celtics trade than I certainly would've expected and I'm not sure how I feel about that.

 

[sailfish]

Using the info in Woj's article, here's a mega 3-way trade that works under the salary cap, although I still think we would need a draft pick from Houston and/or the Knicks:

http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=y8ahb48l

 

[InBoobieWeTrust]

Seems like every summer there's 3-5 stars(top20-30 level players) that switch teams. Whether it be trade, or F.A.

Getting an elite young asset like KP, Tatum, Jackson, etc. puts the Cavs in pole position to get one of those guys in a trade.

It may hurt right now, but it definitely puts us in a better spot to tell LeBron to take his pick of disgruntled stars or even guys who are planning on being free agents but have opt-ins they can use to finagle a trade like Chris Paul.

Hell, all this talk about George/Bron teaming up in L.A...they could easily team up here with Kevin Love and championship level role players instead of Lonzo, Ingram and 8 minimum contracts... Does LBJ really want to waste 2-3 years at the age of 33 Lonzo championship ready and waiting for Ingram to be more than a stick figure with potential, with only being able to add MLE/minimim deals ?


If George tells Presti he's walking unless they let him.opt in and trade him to Cleveland for Jackson/Tatum/Murray...? Presti is taking that deal.and running.

The Cavs have a way better chance of keeping Bron if we get a young asset like that versus getting multiple older guys that are quarters to Kyries dollar bill.

 

[Rich]

Seems like every summer there's 3-5 stars(top20-30 level players) that switch teams. Whether it be trade, or F.A.

Getting an elite young asset like KP, Tatum, Jackson, etc. puts the Cavs in pole position to get one of those guys in a trade.

It may hurt right now, but it definitely puts us in a better spot to tell LeBron to take his pick of disgruntled stars or even guys who are planning on being free agents but have opt-ins they can use to finagle a trade like Chris Paul.

Hell, all this talk about George/Bron teaming up in L.A...they could easily team up here with Kevin Love and championship level role players instead of Lonzo, Ingram and 8 minimum contracts... Does LBJ really want to waste 2-3 years at the age of 33 Lonzo championship ready and waiting for Ingram to be more than a stick figure with potential, with only being able to add MLE/minimim deals ?


If George tells Presti he's walking unless they let him.opt in and trade him to Cleveland for Jackson/Tatum/Murray...? Presti is taking that deal.and running.

The Cavs have a way better chance of keeping Bron if we get a young asset like that versus getting multiple older guys that are quarters to Kyries dollar bill.

They could have just traded Kyrie for George straight up. They passed.

 

[Green Lantern]

I think your take is just a take on that information, I'm with the Funk and think it's now either/or, based on that last bit about they used to think they could get both. Look at what PG and Butler netted. Now they're just going to make it about the future. And this was clearly a management-fueled article, so the've put it on LeBron - if you want to trade for your staying, you have to commit, otherwise we're planning for the future. It's almost like a challenge to the LeBron camp.

The article really also seemed to portray the Cavs as more open to a Celtics trade than I certainly would've expected and I'm not sure how I feel about that.

I know how I feel..unless the Cavs snatch most of their talent, I'm not for making them better than us.