Because they aren't going to trade a superstar for role players. At least, not until they're desperate. Neither team is desperate right now.
Of course, I agree. But, again, is Kevin Love a role player?
Boston with Paul George or Butler would be close. Really close. Would easily be the best team in the East we've faced since LeBron came back. If they can pull it off without giving up all the Nets picks, they can use the remaining one to get another All-Star and be right there.
What does such a deal look like?
What? Who says a theoretical trade involving any team in the entire NBA wouldn't be able to retain Butler/George? C'mon.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
If the Suns traded Bledsoe for Butler, hypothetically; what's the point, exactly?
They've not changed their situation, and Butler just walks or demands a trade before the end of his deal.
There is no equivalence among "any team in the entire NBA" so it does matter where these players are going, and what the team looks like when they arrive; particularly with how many years Butler/George have remaining on their deals.
This isn't what I'm saying at all. On the contrary, the player I was referring to here was Kevin Love. One would think Chicago/Indiana would much rather have Love than a collection of irrelevant role players.
I agree they would, but the point is that if they would rather have multiple assets, and assuming those players are assets, then a deal could still be done. The point here is that Cleveland should have a better deal than Boston sans the Nets picks; which is the point being made by me.
You're asking me why wouldn't Boston just go directly to Indiana, and as I've said, with what?
Then they will never acquire a star unless they draft and/or develop one themselves.
Well, the point of retaining the pick would be to develop a talent in the draft. But FWIW, they just acquired a star player in Al Horford in free agency, and they have trade assets to get another player back.
Right. But Boston isn't going to be included and getting Kevin Love while Chicago/Indiana get irrelevant role players.
The point here is that Kevin Love could be flipped for assets to move to either of those locations if Love isn't enough. If you think those teams would be happy with Love then the condition is still met; if they'd rather have a wider range of assets then the condition is still met. I'm not sure if we even disagree here, as if I'm either of those teams I'm fine with Kevin Love straight-up, but the question is what if they don't want Love? The answer to that question is that Love can be flipped for assets that these teams do want, whatever that looks like.
The team giving up the best player in such a deal would be Chicago/Indiana. They aren't also going to get the worst player(s) in return.
Not sure one can linearly equate things in such a way. I would look at this from the perspective of trade value / assets.
