NardDogNation wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:Saw this yesterday. Odds are he not coming. We have heard this song and dance many times over the years. He's in a good situation in Boston.

But do the Celtice believe that keeping Irving is a good situation for them?

They traded a lot to get him. They had to feel he was a long term commitment. To lose him in 2 yrs would be bad business. Our best bet is if he becomes damaged goods after he resigns with Boston for max. Hopefully Knicks dont Knick and avoid the temptation in that case.

Bad business would be compounding a mistake to save face. We now know how good Rozier can be as a starter under Brad Stephens. We didn't have that knowledge before. The better move to me would be to put Irving on the trade market and either target Karl Anthony Towns or a draft pick to select Mo Bamba. But looking to keep Irving and pay him more than $30 million a year seems like a bad idea even if Kyrie at his current price point isn't.

Im sure they believe they can compete for a chip next season with Kyrie and Hayward back in to fold. They will attempt to make moves to compete for the chip within the next few years even if it means biting the bullet on the back end. They have a few seasons before they have to pay Brown and Tatum and Rozier will be RFA so they probably will look to sign and trade him to nab another draft pick when that time comes. They will try to hold as much talent as possible until absolutely necessary to make moves.

At the same time will be hard to trade Irving with the notion he may not resign with that club.

SupremeCommander wrote:the rumor I heard on SportsTalk 980 in DC was that the Celtics are going to make a play for LeBron. In a twist of fate that probably means trading Kyrie (and other stuff) for him

I get it but at the same time, what does this mean for Brown and Tatum? Or do they play LeBron full-time at PG or C?

NardDogNation wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:Saw this yesterday. Odds are he not coming. We have heard this song and dance many times over the years. He's in a good situation in Boston.

But do the Celtice believe that keeping Irving is a good situation for them?

They traded a lot to get him. They had to feel he was a long term commitment. To lose him in 2 yrs would be bad business. Our best bet is if he becomes damaged goods after he resigns with Boston for max. Hopefully Knicks dont Knick and avoid the temptation in that case.

Bad business would be compounding a mistake to save face. We now know how good Rozier can be as a starter under Brad Stephens. We didn't have that knowledge before. The better move to me would be to put Irving on the trade market and either target Karl Anthony Towns or a draft pick to select Mo Bamba. But looking to keep Irving and pay him more than $30 million a year seems like a bad idea even if Kyrie at his current price point isn't.

Im sure they believe they can compete for a chip next season with Kyrie and Hayward back in to fold. They will attempt to make moves to compete for the chip within the next few years even if it means biting the bullet on the back end. They have a few seasons before they have to pay Brown and Tatum and Rozier will be RFA so they probably will look to sign and trade him to nab another draft pick when that time comes. They will try to hold as much talent as possible until absolutely necessary to make moves.

At the same time will be hard to trade Irving with the notion he may not resign with that club.

The Celtics made a legitimate run at a chip with just the youngins' and Horford. What makes you so sure that Kyrie and (to a lesser extent) Hayward are not expendable at this point, especially at their pricetag? Clearly the Rozier-Tatum-Brown trio has far more to offer them over the next decade and cheaper, which would make it logical to give them the reigns.

The main casualty will probably be Rozier. With the #27 pick in this yrs draft they can start grooming his replacement. Al Hortford will probably opt out and resign one last long term deal most likely in the 4 yr 15mil per range. If not they could move Hortford for cheaper option as he will be 33 at this time. They will keep Kyrie, Hayward, Brown, Tatum as the core playing Brown and Tatum from 2-4 as they get older. They will juggle the rest of the roster through their up coming draft picks that they will continue to flip.

newyorknewyork wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:Saw this yesterday. Odds are he not coming. We have heard this song and dance many times over the years. He's in a good situation in Boston.

But do the Celtice believe that keeping Irving is a good situation for them?

They traded a lot to get him. They had to feel he was a long term commitment. To lose him in 2 yrs would be bad business. Our best bet is if he becomes damaged goods after he resigns with Boston for max. Hopefully Knicks dont Knick and avoid the temptation in that case.

Bad business would be compounding a mistake to save face. We now know how good Rozier can be as a starter under Brad Stephens. We didn't have that knowledge before. The better move to me would be to put Irving on the trade market and either target Karl Anthony Towns or a draft pick to select Mo Bamba. But looking to keep Irving and pay him more than $30 million a year seems like a bad idea even if Kyrie at his current price point isn't.

Im sure they believe they can compete for a chip next season with Kyrie and Hayward back in to fold. They will attempt to make moves to compete for the chip within the next few years even if it means biting the bullet on the back end. They have a few seasons before they have to pay Brown and Tatum and Rozier will be RFA so they probably will look to sign and trade him to nab another draft pick when that time comes. They will try to hold as much talent as possible until absolutely necessary to make moves.

At the same time will be hard to trade Irving with the notion he may not resign with that club.

Not to mention Ainge is a genius and has more assets flowing in. Competing with Boston and the 76ers will be a difficult task. We have to hit on everything we do because we are so far behind in asset collection

NardDogNation wrote:Pass. He's an amazing specialist as a shooter, penetrator and finisher but the rest of his game is too deficient for me to pay him the max he'd be seeking. I'm also concerned about his frame of mind with the kind of stuff he says in the media and interest in indulging his celebrity outside of basketball. Taking into account all these factors with his age and physical health, it becomes a very risky proposition to invest in Kyrie.

If Kyrie Irving wants to come to the Knicks as a free agent just for open cap space, then you do it, and you give him the max.

I can speak from my own personal experience, at least from the NFL side, every player talks about playing for every other team all the time in the lockerroom. Most of it is in jest.

I think most people have a poor grasp of how the sports media actually operates.

"Do you think Becky Hammond is inspirational and would be a great NBA coach someday?"

If you say Yes ( why would you not with a camera in your face?), then the story will read Player X or Coach Y loves Becky Hammond and believes she has a bright future as a one day NBA head coach. Advertisers and brands are happy because it's a pro feminist narrative and women disproportionately make the consumer purchasing decisions in almost every average American household ( i.e. holding the "pursestrings")

If you say No ( why would you? In what world would that make sense for anyone?), then the story will read Player X or Coach Y hate women and thinks Becky Hammond sucks and it's just another example of male privilege and the NBA needs to spend major money on seminars, workshops and promoting women working in the NBA in general. The publication or site will get a kickback silently from some organization that runs these seminars and workshops by means of ad revenue.

If you hesitate, then it's very close to saying No, and the story will read, Player X or Coach Y are intimidated by Becky Hammond's rise and success.

This is why pro sports franchises don't like new people in the sports media ( no incentive to think about the long term) and outlier type situations ( i.e. Rolling Stone coming to NFL training camp asking about Michael Sam, they have no reason to show restraint to fabricate a story)

How you frame a question can railroad into the answer and narrative and headline you want.

I've said this before here on UK, many times. There is not enough legitimate NBA news to fill a 24/7/365 news cycle. This is why you have First Take, fake feuds, stupid fabricated controversy and planted stories like this. The complexities and roster size of the NFL and MLB are much different, they don't need as much fabrication to have fresh news and interest pieces for the masses.