Welpee wrote:What leverage does Kyrie have? If Cleveland decides to move him they don't have to comply with his request to go to certain teams. He has three years left on his current deal.

Nike.

The networks pay the NBA billions to air their games. The networks can only afford to do so because of corporate sponsors who buy commercial time/ad space/etc Many players in pro sports make more from their endorsements than they do their playing contracts.

Case in point. LeBron James was not married and had two children out of wedlock with his long time GF. As the story goes, Nike says, OK, this is bad for the image of the brand, it's bad because we want stability and the perception of it ( i.e. why Tiger Woods kept apologizing to his sponsors and not his wife during his bizarre "I'm A Sex Addict" mea culpa) So as the rumor goes, LBJ told his GF to flush her third pregnancy. Then they got hitched.

Irving doesn't ask for a trade without first consulting his agent AND consulting Nike. If you doubt the power of Nike, look at the Oregon college football program. It because a litmus test of how much money and influence could you pump into a non entity and make it a power house.

To get MAX VALUE in trading Irving, the Cavs need to trade him with about two years left on his contract. Trading him in his walk year just reduces too much leverage. In situations like this, it takes half a season or a full season for a team to explore a deal and see what might work. ( Dwight Howard, Deron Williams, Melo in Denver, lots of these situations played out for a long time) He's not expecting to be traded now, he's expecting the timeline to work he's traded around this coming offseason, after the Warriors curb stomp the Cavs and LBJ clearly leaves for some other team.

Melo alone is not enough to trade for Irving. Everything is relative to what Irving might garner from the TWENTY EIGHT OTHER TEAMS IN THE LEAGUE. The Knicks offer has to be the BEST OVERALL OFFER OF ALL TRADE OPTIONS THEY HAVE to work. It also has to operate as a win/win for both franchises in place.

If the Cavs say, Melo for Irving, you do that, without hesitation. Any team that would not ( and this trade would never get offered ever) would basically have a target on the back of it's entire front office. It would be seen as administrative negligence of a front office to turn a deal like that down.

If the Cavs say, Melo and Frank N and something else, you do that. No hesitation.

If the Cavs say, Melo and Zinger, with Melo really operating as the salary offset, you do that. No hesitation.

You take the best talent you can, and you figure the rest out later.

Yes, yes, someone will say Irving is a blackhole on defense. That's true. So what, then RETRADE HIM LATER. The point is to have OPTIONS. Irving on the roster opens up a ton of options all over the league. Not trading for him means the Knicks have no options period as Melo is a sunk cost and a millstone around the team's neck.

Irving should have been traded, the first minute LBJ came back to the Cavs roster. So the team could get a pivot, rim protection, wings and defense. But LBJ is just the village idiot. He keeps demanding stupid rosters that don't fit then blaming the teams front office later for being cap and asset locked for going on his BS whims to appease him. He's a player who transcends jut about any individual expectation of how one athlete can dominate a game. But he's just plain stupid otherwise. We are talking rock hard dumb on the level of Kevin Garnett and Emmitt Smith and even Harold Reynolds. ( you have to basically have the brain size of a parakeet to be as stupid as Reynolds, but LBJ finds a way...)

That LBJ can walk in front of the mic, really try very hard to not say another stupid thing and everyone seems to kiss his butt anyway is a testament to the sheer willpower of Nikes marketing department.

Irving is a franchise player. Not a top tier one, but still a franchise player. And whatever his weaknesses, Nike will make sure the league makes sure the refs give him every single advantage possible. If you can trade for a franchise player, you do it, and you don't look back.

TripleThreat wrote:

Welpee wrote:What leverage does Kyrie have? If Cleveland decides to move him they don't have to comply with his request to go to certain teams. He has three years left on his current deal.

Nike.

The networks pay the NBA billions to air their games. The networks can only afford to do so because of corporate sponsors who buy commercial time/ad space/etc Many players in pro sports make more from their endorsements than they do their playing contracts.

Case in point. LeBron James was not married and had two children out of wedlock with his long time GF. As the story goes, Nike says, OK, this is bad for the image of the brand, it's bad because we want stability and the perception of it ( i.e. why Tiger Woods kept apologizing to his sponsors and not his wife during his bizarre "I'm A Sex Addict" mea culpa) So as the rumor goes, LBJ told his GF to flush her third pregnancy. Then they got hitched.

Irving doesn't ask for a trade without first consulting his agent AND consulting Nike. If you doubt the power of Nike, look at the Oregon college football program. It because a litmus test of how much money and influence could you pump into a non entity and make it a power house.

To get MAX VALUE in trading Irving, the Cavs need to trade him with about two years left on his contract. Trading him in his walk year just reduces too much leverage. In situations like this, it takes half a season or a full season for a team to explore a deal and see what might work. ( Dwight Howard, Deron Williams, Melo in Denver, lots of these situations played out for a long time) He's not expecting to be traded now, he's expecting the timeline to work he's traded around this coming offseason, after the Warriors curb stomp the Cavs and LBJ clearly leaves for some other team.

Melo alone is not enough to trade for Irving. Everything is relative to what Irving might garner from the TWENTY EIGHT OTHER TEAMS IN THE LEAGUE. The Knicks offer has to be the BEST OVERALL OFFER OF ALL TRADE OPTIONS THEY HAVE to work. It also has to operate as a win/win for both franchises in place.

If the Cavs say, Melo for Irving, you do that, without hesitation. Any team that would not ( and this trade would never get offered ever) would basically have a target on the back of it's entire front office. It would be seen as administrative negligence of a front office to turn a deal like that down.

If the Cavs say, Melo and Frank N and something else, you do that. No hesitation.

If the Cavs say, Melo and Zinger, with Melo really operating as the salary offset, you do that. No hesitation.

You take the best talent you can, and you figure the rest out later.

Yes, yes, someone will say Irving is a blackhole on defense. That's true. So what, then RETRADE HIM LATER. The point is to have OPTIONS. Irving on the roster opens up a ton of options all over the league. Not trading for him means the Knicks have no options period as Melo is a sunk cost and a millstone around the team's neck.

Irving should have been traded, the first minute LBJ came back to the Cavs roster. So the team could get a pivot, rim protection, wings and defense. But LBJ is just the village idiot. He keeps demanding stupid rosters that don't fit then blaming the teams front office later for being cap and asset locked for going on his BS whims to appease him. He's a player who transcends jut about any individual expectation of how one athlete can dominate a game. But he's just plain stupid otherwise. We are talking rock hard dumb on the level of Kevin Garnett and Emmitt Smith and even Harold Reynolds. ( you have to basically have the brain size of a parakeet to be as stupid as Reynolds, but LBJ finds a way...)

That LBJ can walk in front of the mic, really try very hard to not say another stupid thing and everyone seems to kiss his butt anyway is a testament to the sheer willpower of Nikes marketing department.

Irving is a franchise player. Not a top tier one, but still a franchise player. And whatever his weaknesses, Nike will make sure the league makes sure the refs give him every single advantage possible. If you can trade for a franchise player, you do it, and you don't look back.

No one from the Knicks or the NBA is going to trade Porzingis AND Carmelo for Kyrie.

Kyrie ran a 30 win team before obj came back. Look at his stats last year with lbs off the floor-8

Lbs turns Melo into super star status like the Olympics-- Melo is an absolute star on the Cavs with Lbj-- adding in some quality vets like Oquinn and Lee makes Cleveland as dangerous a team in the NBA again. We can't keep stripping our team for secondary stars-- you get on a treadmill.

Carmelo vet vet restricted pick or zero. I'm not even that hot on Kyrie but for a Carmelo package I know it's something we can do. If we give the Cavs Melo Lee Oquinn they. Ompete with Golden State again. That would force us to take one junk contract back plus Kyrie

smackeddog wrote:

NYKBocker wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/IanBegley/status/888524825311928321

They did a presser a few days ago saying their priority was unselfish players who play defense and that they wouldn't trade away first rounders, and that they'd view every decision with that template. Now they're ditching it!

We've been here before- Irving is clearly putting himself and his own personal fame over winning. He's injury prone. He doesn't defend. KP hated playing with Rose, how do you think he'll enjoy playing with Irving?

NardDogNation wrote:

VCoug wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

VCoug wrote:

SocraticBallin22 wrote:

VCoug wrote:

SocraticBallin22 wrote:

VCoug wrote:Kyrie is super overrated. He scores points well but doesn't do anything else of value. I'd trade for him if it means we don't give up KP, WHG, Ntilikina, or future firsts; I'm sure we could turn around and trade him for a nice draft pick haul. But no way I'm giving up any of our best assets for him.

I guess you failed to watch the playoffs last year and the Finals where he looked like the best player on the court.

I saw, though I never thought he looked better than Lebron. I also don't let the small sample size of a single postseason override everything else he's done. How did he look in this year's postseason; at any point did he look like the best player on the court? Did you know that this past season, the Cavs were -120 in 635 minutes with Kyrie on the court and Lebron off?

I've seen enough of a sample size in his career through the eye test to know: 1) He's a franchise player 2) He's top 3 pg in the NBA right now 3) He's the best ball handler in the NBA 4) He's ice water clutch

And he is only 25 and wants to come here. His best b-ball is ahead of him, not behind him.

If you're eye test tells you Kyrie is a better PG than Chris Paul, Westbrook, or Curry than you need to get your eyes checked.

This is classic dumb starfukk by the Knicks in the making. So much for emphasis on defense, same **** different dumbass.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. This is the same kind of move we've been making since Isiah Thomas took over; guy who puts up a bunch of points but doesn't do anything else. Doesn't make his teammates better and doesn't play any defense. The only reason I'd even trade for Kyrie is to flip him for picks/young talent and we're talking about trading picks/young talent for him!

I'm team VCoug when it comes to Kyrie. He's not just an empty stat guy; he's a not-too-bright (believes the world is flat), empty stat guy that we'd be asking to quarterback our offense. I'm tempted to not even want him at his salary, let alone giving up blue chip assets to get him. I think he'd have a similar effect to what Rose had this season i.e. not good.

not to mention.... he started to NOT want to be on team last year and then made it formal this year. 3 Straight years in the finals, probably a 4th coming up and he wants off team. WTF

nyknickzingis wrote:I think the difference in Irving and Rose is that Irving has the outside shot and can actually form an impact that is both with on ball play and off ball. Rose was a non-factor off the ball. Irving would be like our 2, and our 1 would still be either Frank or Ron, depending on what players went out in the trade.

You would need to see the team play a little smaller on the perimeter.

Hernangomez
Porzingis
Hardaway
Ntilikina
Irving

That's a young, athletic, quick, 3 point shooting lineup.

A deal that could maybe work for them is Melo, top 10 protected 2018 pick (top 7 protected 2019) and a second round pick.

That said, if Cavs get Melo, where do they play him, Love and Lebron? Does Love play the 5? He can't really defend inside. It seems like a lineup that will defensively be challenged. If Love is ok coming off the bench as a stretcg 5 though, it changes things.

Thomposon/Love
Melo/Frye
Lebron
Smith/Korver
Rose/Shumpert

It would take quite a sacrifice for Love to make this work in Cleveland. He would need to come off the bench as a stretch 5 that can score big off the bench and give the Cavs more firepower through 48 minutes.

Cleveland
Bledsoe
Melo
C. Lee
O'Quinn

Knicks
Irving
Dudley
Frye

Phoenix
Love

Apparently it works via ESPN trade machine: http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ycy6nj3v

Now Cleveland has a starting line up of:
Thomposon
Melo
Lebron
Lee
Bledsoe

If they sign Rose, you have him Smith, Shumpert and Korver off the bench. O'Quinn provides quality big off the bench. With all signs pointing to Lebron bouncing after this season, Cleveland loads up for one last run. If Melo has a typical Melo season he opts out next year when Lebron leaves so Cleveland is not saddled with the remainder of his deal and they're back in rebuild mode.

1 - A 24 year old all-star coming off a strong season is going to cost more than a 32 year old coming off a weaker season automatically.
2 - Irving has a bigger list of teams he's willing to play for and there are 29 teams Cleveland could trade him to since he has no NTC.
3 - We'd probably want Irving more than they'd want Melo. Do they really need three all-star forwards? They can get a younger, better player who fits their roster both now and in the long-term in case Lebron leaves better than Melo does.
4 - They probably realize they can't win a championship with Melo instead of Irving. They're just a weaker, less balanced team than the one that lost last year.

If the trade was just Melo for Irving or something close to that, sure I'd do it. If we're giving up a fortune to get Irving, no thanks.

franco12 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I haven't gone through all 12 pages and don't know how much of this has been said but there are several reasons why I think Irving is going to cost a fortune - way more than just Melo if Melo even agrees to a trade there.

1 - A 24 year old all-star coming off a strong season is going to cost more than a 32 year old coming off a weaker season automatically.
2 - Irving has a bigger list of teams he's willing to play for and there are 29 teams Cleveland could trade him to since he has no NTC.
3 - We'd probably want Irving more than they'd want Melo. Do they really need three all-star forwards? They can get a younger, better player who fits their roster both now and in the long-term in case Lebron leaves better than Melo does.
4 - They probably realize they can't win a championship with Melo instead of Irving. They're just a weaker, less balanced team than the one that lost last year.

If the trade was just Melo for Irving or something close to that, sure I'd do it. If we're giving up a fortune to get Irving, no thanks.

I agree on Irvings comparative value to Melo.

But, their GM is LeBron, and he's handed out some stupid big contracts to his friends there.

We have Melo, which is one case where we have a potentially attractive asset.